New EU Prez to Provide Endless Entertainment
by Mark Noonan on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:16pm
For us global warming deniers, that is:
The European Union’s new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.
The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.
The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.
But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy - including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases - the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.
Czech diplomats in Brussels insist that Mr Klaus is not a big part of their plans and are trying to limit him to one speech to the European Parliament in February and chairing one international summit, either the EU-Canada or EU-Russia meeting.
They are pinning their hopes on a lunch between Mr Klaus and Mr Topolanek on January 5, which they hope will see both parties agree a truce after the President’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat his rival as Prime Minister at a party conference last month.
“What is sure is that there will be at least a little choir of voices coming from Prague that will not be singing the same song,” said Piotr Kaczynski, of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels.
And therein lies the entertainment value - the head guy will be out there speaking sense, while the rest of the EU apparatus is blindly going along with the anthropogenic global warming hoax. I love how the global warming kooks are determined to put Czech President on a leash…they know that having someone as respected as klaus making rational, incontrovertible statements on global warming (and a host of other issues the EU-topians have wrong) will just be the kid pointing out the naked Emperor.
Anyways, fun, fun, fun for us on the right side of the aisle!
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Ok, you can deny global warming. But you can not deny that humans have an adverse affect on the environment. The extreme pollution in places like Beijing or Mexico City. The steady deforestation of the Amazon. Over-fishing and over-hunting.
Also, you can not deny that temperatures have warmed. What is under debate is what caused the rise.
Is there any CREDIBLE scientific organization that says that man-made global warming is incorrect?
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
mule,
To be sure, I had my doubts right from the start - but that is because I’m old enough to remember when anthropogenic CO2 was causing a new ice age…that was back in the 70’s when we had a series of really cold years…and then the cold years ended and, hey presto!, we suddenly were confronted with the new theory that anthropogenic CO2 was causing the world to warm up. Given that the same thing was being used in two exactly opposite theories, I doubted it - but kept my mind open.
Until I found out just what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of anthropogenic CO2 and how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of, say, volcanic eruptions. At that point, doubts were confirmed and I was ready to become a denier right then (this was some years ago), but as the world was, indeed, heating up I had to wait until there was a substantial number of years without warming before bothering to take a stand, not wanting to spend my time arguing against a transient warming trend. Now that we’ve had 10 years of either flat or, perhaps, declining global mean temperatures, I’m able to “come out of the closet”, as it were.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Athiestmule, I think the big point is not a denial of that the climate has gotten warm, but that it is mostly or solely caused by Mankind, which is why I always refer to it as AGW, anthropogenic global warming.
Now, there is not doubt in my mind that warming has happened. We came out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800’s, and have gotten warmer.
I myself used to believe in AGW. I have been following this issue since the early 1990’s. I have always been a heavy environmentalist, especially regarding the seashores. I grew up at the beach, and would surf, sail, dive, etc. But, over time, I learned better.
Yes, Man does have a small piece of the puzzle, particularly from agriculture and landfills. But pollution is different. CO2 is not a pollutant. And there are quite a few scientists and climatologists who believe AGW is bunk. Funny how those on the Believer side never question the credentials of Al Gore, eh?
But, the temps have been stagnant for 10 years now, and actually went down in 2008, despite the cry from the media that 2008 was one of the hottest years on records. It wasn’t, at least not when we look at the real data.
As far as the environment goes, I am all for clean air, land, and water, to the best we can. Save the rainforests and animals. Etc. But, AGW is crap, pure and simple.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Come live in North Yorkshire if you believe in global warming–you’ll be begging for some!!!
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Mark: but that is because I’m old enough to remember when anthropogenic CO2 was causing a new ice age…
Actually, that wasn’t the predominant view, even then. Also, back then it should be recognized that climate science was in its infancy. A lot more has been learned since then.
One other thing that happened in the 60s and 70s was a growing concern about acid rain. Acid rain was caused by sulfur compounds in the atmosphere which condensed into sulfuric and sulfurous acid and fell on croplands, killing or weakening food crops and other plants. As a result, laws were passed here in the US and in Europe to remove sulfur and other compounds from waste gasses emitted by smokestacks and automobiles. Those compounds were largely AGW negative, meaning they tended to reflect heat rather than absorbing it.
If that’s all you knew, what do you suppose would happen to global temperatures if those substances were removed? I’d say the prediction aligns with what actually did happen — global temperatures began to rise.
After you answer that question, riddle me this: in the last 10 years or so, what large countries have shown the most dramatic economic growth — and by extension, the biggest increases in energy consumption? And more importantly, what was characteristic of the waste gases associated with that energy consumption in terms of the relative content of sulfur compounds, nitrogen compounds, CFCs and particulates (i.e., negative AGW substances) versus CO2 and methane (i.e. positive AGW substances)? I mean really… why do you think the air above many Chinese cities is getting unbreathable? It’s not because of CO2.
If you were to investigate those things, what you find may at least convince you that simply trying to correlate global temperature measurements with atmospheric CO2 concentrations alone is a fool’s errand. You have to take the relative concentrations of multiple substances into account. But that’s just for starters. You have to also know where in the atmosphere they congregate, how they affect cloud covers, surface albedo and illumination, and the like. You also have to know what other effects they may have.
For example, though sulfur compounds and CO2 have opposite effects on temperature, they both increase ocean acidity. And that can have numerous effects on ecosystems independent of their effect on temperature. For example, different plankton species thrive better in certain pHs than others. You change the pH and you change their distribution — and the distribution of the other animals that depend on them, all the way up the food chain. Similarly, crustaceans don’t thrive in low pH water. It interferes with their ability to fix calcium in their shells. That effect also has ramifications all the way up the food chain.
Superimposed on all this is the effect of external forcers — most notably and fundamentally the sun, what it’s doing, and where the earth is in relation to it. One aspect of the sun’s behavior that has denialist’s (I’m using a variation on Mark’s description of himself) imaginations aflutter is the recent lull in sunspot activity. Apparently some are absolutely convinced that this is an incontrovertible indication that we are entering into another Maunder minimum. But is it really so incontrovertible? To be convinced of that wouldn’t you have to know in considerable detail the internal dynamics of the sun? The fact is, no one does. The technology doesn’t yet exist (if it ever will). The best one can do is infer what is happening deep down inside on the basis of surface events. And detailed study of those events and their implications is at best just starting. Considering all that, I fail to see how anyone can be absolutely sure of anything. And even if we are heading into a Maunder minimum (which is at best unknown), what difference does it make in the long run? It’s not like the sun is about to blink out. Sooner or later sunspots will recur. And if we ignore that reality in the interim the results could be devastating.
A while back I was criticized for equating certainty about AGW (and especially certainty in its ramifications) and certainty that AGW isn’t happening. To me the difference between belief in either certainty (or its time scale) on the one hand, and a 5lb bag of pig poo (as I recall) on the other, is the bag.
That being said there are other considerations. First and foremost (this is a multi-parter) is the recognition that any and all solutions proposed to “cure” AGW converge on the solutions proposed to “cure” a host of other issues. Continuing dependence on fossil fuels is unhealthy. It’s unhealthy for those that live around strip mines, around refineries, around facilities that burn the stuff, and around vehicles that use the stuff. Continuing dependence on fossil fuels is also becoming increasingly destructive to the environment. Have you seen what’s happening up in Alberta around the tar sand pits? Continuing dependence on fossil fuels is also becoming increasingly expensive. Reserves are getting harder to find and more difficult and expensive to extract. And of course, continuing dependence on foreign fossil fuels is destructive to the economy (it adds something like $800 billion/yr to the trade deficit), makes us vulnerable to price shocks (as if anyone needed reminding), foreign politics (again, as if anyone needed reminding), and foreign competition (for example, track what China has been up to over the last few years).
Second, many alternative energy sources are getting cheaper. It’s no longer a question of whether at least some of them will achieve parity, but when. The market out there is enormous. And of course, to the victors go the spoils. And do you really think other countries aren’t subsidizing manufacturers in their countries?
I’m afraid I’ve run out of time. I’ll have to end here. But I’ve said what I wanted to say for the most part anyway.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
co2 may not cause global warming. But Methane does, and so does car exhaust. So do the fumes from coal plants, oil plants, and other things that burn.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
William,
My sentiments exactly - and, in fact, I’d agree to a very large increase in environmentalism IF we could ensure that environmentalists have nothing to do with it. I don’t trust the kooks - a bunch of watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). We need clear air and water and wide, open spaces…but only because such things are, in and of themselves, good things to have - not because of some enviro-whacko fairy tales.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
rico, did you know that 40% of the CO2 rise in the 20th century occured before 1940? Not many cars back then. Also, I would suggest you Google “co2 800 years.” Makes for fascinating reading.
athiestmule, you are correct on methane, which is what is coming from landfills and agriculture, though studies like the IPCC do not like to mention it, because methane is just not a sexy gas, and it is rather hard to push for economic and lifestyle controls over “cow farts.” It is anywhere 20-60 times more potent then CO2. Did you know that a study was done that showed that volcano’s along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge have been much more active, which means that not only are they warming the oceans, but, cause methane pockets on the sea floor to melt and release into the atmosphere.
And yes, car pollutants do cause localized warming, known as the urban island effect. But, consider, the temps outside urban areas like Atlanta and NYC are typically 5 to 10 degrees F. below the cities. But, vehicles are, and have been, getting much much cleaner. So much of the so called global warming is actually only micro-climate changes, such as with Mt. Kilamanjaro. The trees are the Mt. have been clearcut, allowing warmer, drier air to flow up the mountain, melting the glaciers and reducing snow fall. So it is not any AGW, but localized changes in the weather patterns, which means the local climate has changed. Easily fixable without damaging economies and taking over peoples lives.
The thing that drives me the most nuts, Mark, is that these AGW Believers have hijacked legitimate environmental issues, suborning them for their nefarious purposes. They do not want to save the frogs because frogs are good for the environment and are cools (except in middle summer, when I can actually hear them in the pond out back over the AC), but because “AGW is killing them.” Bah. I donate a lot to saving the Manatees. Always found them to be cool. Now I get emails about saving them from AGW. Little mention of boats going to fast in the areas they chow down in. Bah. Drives me nuts.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Actually, William, the urban island effect has little to do with car exhaust. It’s really just the fact that the asphalt ground absorbs heat quickly, but is slow to release it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
co2 may not cause global warming. But Methane does, and so does car exhaust. So do the fumes from coal plants, oil plants, and other things that burn.
Well said, Al. I’m truly convinced now…not!
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
William Teach: rico, did you know that 40% of the CO2 rise in the 20th century occured before 1940? Not many cars back then.
You’re right. Then again, even now, today, transportation accounts for only 40% of fossil fuel consumption. There was prior to 1940 (and is now) lots of coal, gas, and oil being used to supply electricity, heating, etc. Those sources were also cleaned up in the 70s. It wasn’t just cars. But places like China and India haven’t gotten around to doing that yet.
Also, I would suggest you Google “co2 800 years.”
Yup, no question about it — there is, on average, an 800 year lag between temperature shifts and CO2 concentration shifts. But it’s not a tight correlation, strongly suggesting there are intermediate factors affecting the coupling. Do you know what they are? Does it seem to you at least possible that anthropogenic effects on one or more of those intermediate factors might change that coupling? Also, what is the range of CO2 concentrations recorded over the last, say, 600,000 years as the sun’s intensity oscillated? And where are we now?
I don’t know of any reputable climate scientists who think land use issues aren’t factors in climate change. Then again, I don’t know of any reputable climate scientists who think land use issues are all there is to contemplate either. But you apparently do — fix those, you say, and problem solved. Well, some may be. But how can you be sure they all will?
atheistmule has already set you straight on the urban island effect.
I have heard of a study suggested that maybe volcanic activity along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge has been more active in recent years, perhaps releasing methane frozen on the surrounding sea beds into the atmosphere. I’ve also heard of studies that have detected rises in methane levels in tundra regions, presumably as a result of melting permafrost. For all I know one or both of those may turn out to be accurate. Let’s hope not — or at least let’s hope they aren’t a big deal. Because if they are, we’re in for a world of hurt.
By the way, how do you feel about peak oil? Do you think the world can drill or mine its way out of it? How do you feel about the US’s dependence on foreign oil? Do you think we as a country have enough domestic resources to drill or mine our way out of it? And what will be the effect on the environment if we have to increasingly resort to “unconventional” fuel sources like tar sands and oil shale? It seems to me that those questions, though their causes are largely unrelated, converge on many of the same solutions.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
No he won’t. The current President of the EU is the Czech Republic. The current leader of the Czech Republic is Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek.
Actually, the concepts of global warming and the greenhouse effect have been around since the 19th century.
You’re confusing global warming and the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is not in and of itself bad; indeed, without it the surface of the Earth would be 50 or 60 degrees colder than it is. The problem is that the greenhouse effect is increasing.
Except that there haven’t been a “substantial number of years without warming”. Ten years may seem like a long time to us, but it’s not long enough to account for random variability. It also doesn’t account for outliers, such as the 1998 El Niño. This site does a pretty good job explaining it.
We don’t question the credentials of Al Gore because we don’t care about him. While he has done some good work in raising awareness, he’s not considered to be an authority.
As to the climatologists who think it’s bunk, I remember reading here not long ago that Mr. Swift Boat was going to be releasing a list of those scientists. Do you by any chance know where I can find it?
In other news, 50% of school children tested below the median score.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Sergei,
We know that CO2 helps keep our atmosphere warm - but what we’re discussing here is the absurd theory that human-caused CO2 emissions are significant enough to modify the global mean temperature. There’s no doubt the world is warmer than it was at the end of the “little ice age”, what is at issue is why its warmer - those of us who pay attention realize its related to the normal ebb and flow of things in the natural world…those on your side of the aisle have been suckered into thinking its caused by humanity, especially Americans.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
You guys really have to check out Amory Lovins. He’s an energy efficiency expert and founder of the “think and do” tank (as he likes to call it), Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org). A good place to start is this interview with Charlie Rose, where he discusses a broad range of ideas and explains how they all fit together. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (particularly oil) is not just about global warming, it’s about creating jobs, saving money, helping the economy, reducing the US trade imbalance, improving national security, and even making military logistics less vulnerable. I think one of his best lines (about 21:30 in) is “efficiency, whether of oil or electricity or gas, is getting ever bigger and cheaper, the opposite of oil. It’s like the low-hanging fruit is mushing up around our ankles and the tree keeps pelting our heads with more fruit. What part of this don’t we get?
William Teach expressed his exasperation at greenies hijacking legitimate environmental issues by making them all about global warming. I feel a similar exasperation at global warming “deniers” hijacking legitimate energy issues and solutions by making them all about global warming.
One of the things I particularly like about Lovins’ approach is that it is very market oriented. He looks for solutions that make economic sense. And if solutions make economic sense (and a lot of them do) who cares whether AGW is a big deal? Anyway, you really should check out Lovins, and go up to the RMI website. On the front page is a link to his book, “Winning the Oil Endgame” (commissioned by the Pentagon and thoroughly peer reviewed, by the way). It’s rather technical, but a fascinating read.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I think Rico makes a good point here. Instead of arguing about global warming, we should be discussing ways of getting off our addition to oil. A trillion dollars a year leaves our country to pay for oil. I have to think we could find better ways of spending that money. Can anyone think of a good reason not to be looking at other energy sources? Not only looking, but actively developing those sources?
January 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
GodlessASS
co2 may not cause global warming. But Methane does, and so does car exhaust. So do the fumes from coal plants, oil plants, and other things that burn.
So KILL your self save the planet from your methane, and CO and us here from your obsessive BU!! S#!T
January 4th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Nice, FMRmarine. Really classy.
Anyway, even IF AGW were false, there is still no reason to continue with the unsustainable lifestyle we’re living now. A whole lot of threats other than AGW exist with oil: terrorism, Peak Oil, etc. If we’re wrong about AGW, but we switch to renewable energy, well, what’s the harm in that? But if you’re wrong, well, I won’t want to be here in about 100 years. So it doesn’t really matter if you’re right or if we’re right (but we are, just to clear things up lol) because the best alternative for BOTH of us is a more sustainable lifestyle. Of course, many Republicans are in Big Oil’s pocket, so there’s nothing that’ll convince them; for them, it’s just a big pile of crisp, fresh, dollar bills.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Fmr, it’s not my methane, it’s the methane of the cow you call your wife.
JK
But honestly, cows produce a ton of methane in their farts.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
fr00tn00b, the thing you and so many on the Left miss is that Conservatives are all for alternative energy sources, but do not think we should just abandon oil when there is nothing viable to replace it at this time. Corn ethanol is a disaster. We would love to build nuclear plants, particularly the types that the French have, which can reuse the spent fuel, so called 4th generation plants. Solar is not cutting it, and, hilariously, it was lefty environmentals that blocked the laying of a transmission line from a solar plant in the desert outside of Los Angelos to LA.
We also do not want to destroy the economy in the name of the fake AGW. And, in more hilarity, very few of the AGW believers get beyond the “something needs to be done!” to “I’ll do it myself.” If you believe in AGW so heavily, will you trade in whatever vehicle you have for one of the tiny micro cars that burn ethenol or something similar? And follow all the other Tenents? Because I have yet to find an AGW believer that will. They all want the government to do something.
As far as the ad hominum attack regarding Republicans being in the pocket of Big Oil, perhaps you should reconsider that statement, since there are tons of Democrats in the same boat. Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, and Noam Chomskey come to mind as folks who make lots of money off oil. Same with Nancy Pelosi. Heck, read Mark and Matt’s book, as well as several others. Oil is probably the second most important commodity in the world at this time, behind people.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
GodlessASS
Fmr, it’s not my methane, it’s the methane of the cow you call your wife.
that if said in person to me would get your athiestASS kicked.
how ever from a mental midget one must consider the source.
However id be willing to post a pic of my wife to Mark if you will do the same and let the tales of the tape see which is more of a cow.
except you would have to cheat.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Hey, it was a joke. Have a sense of humor, eh?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
fruitloop
Nice, FMRmarine. Really classy.
Anyway, even IF AGW were false, there is still no reason to continue with the unsustainable lifestyle we’re living now. A whole lot of threats other than AGW
It has nothing to do with class.
If these morons really believe this, then THEY need to turn off all electricity to their homes.
Sell all their vehicles.
quit their jobs.
quit eating anything green as plants absorb co2 and give off oxygen.
and to an extrme illiminate them selves because their humanity is a threat to nature.
If not stay the HELL out of my life!
January 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Mule
Hey, it was a joke. Have a sense of humor, eh?
COOL!! :)
January 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Barack Obama’s goal to have 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015 is a step in the right direction. That will amount to .4% of the roughly 250 million conventionally powered vehicles on the road today, and should make a huge difference in the amount of oil we use and the amount of greenhouse gases we expel into the atmosphere.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
rico,
Thanks for the link to the Amory Lovins interview. Smart guy. There are a lot of people who should be listening to him.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Spook: Barack Obama’s goal to have 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015 is a step in the right direction. That will amount to .4% of the roughly 250 million conventionally powered vehicles on the road today, and should make a huge difference in the amount of oil we use and the amount of greenhouse gases we expel into the atmosphere.
I presume you’re being facetious. Fair enough. But your counter-proposal is… what?
The fact is, it’s not just hybrid technologies that are coming along at a break-neck pace, but also advances in drive train technologies, integrated design principles, and light weight materials with several times the tensile strength of the steel currently used in vehicles. Assuming you’re a geek (and among the labels various individuals have attempted to apply to me, I like that one the best, though even that one is not entirely accurate either), this is a wonderful time to be alive. IMO, though it may look like piles of lemons as far as the eye can see, the potential for turning them into lemonade has never been larger. There is, in fact, an essential beauty to it. One way or another, this is a defining moment. I just hope we get it reasonably close to right.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
ricorun,
Here is something else to think about as far as new technologies and how they can save us money. Next semester I will have over 160 students in 6 classes. For the semester they will have about 20 assignments ranging from 1 to 8 pages. Figure an average of 4 pages per assignment. So how many pieces of paper will my students turn in? Zero. Every assignment will be done electronically. That means we will save somewhere between 12,000 and 13,000 pieces of paper in one semester. And that’s just coming from one teacher. At this point I am the exception rather than the rule, but as more teachers go this direction, the savings in paper, ink, trapper keepers, etc. will skyrocket.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
I presume you’re being facetious. Fair enough. But your counter-proposal is… what?
The only short-term bridge that makes any sense from a standpoint of ease of conversion of existing vehicles, no reliance on foreign sources of supply and ease of establishing a distribution network is CNG. I don’t agree with the rest of T. Boone’s scheme, but, IMHO, anything else is just pissin’ up a waterfall.
One way or another, this is a defining moment. I just hope we get it reasonably close to right.
If we rely on government to be the driving force, we won’t even get reasonably close to reasonably close. And if Obama raises taxes significantly on the very entrepreneurs who could make it happen — it won’t.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:54 am
melting temperature of methane : -296.5°F or -182.5 ° C
This makes your post a beautiful physics fail
January 5th, 2009 at 11:20 am
french student, there are indeed vast quantities of methane on the sea floor (and in polar permafrost). It’s trapped as bubbles in ice crystals, and the combination is called methane hydrate. If that ice melts it would be a disaster.