The failure of the “green jobs” scam is becoming so obvious that even the New York Times has noticed, with a story today headlined “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” And even some Democrats are starting to notice! The whole “green jobs” enthusiasm is likely to go down in policy history as the energy/environment equivalent of the Great Society/War on Poverty/”Model Cities” social engineering of the 1960s.
If you’re interested in a thorough takedown of the whole subject, see the Cato Institute’s terrific book on the subject, The False Promise of Green Energy, written by Roger Meiners, Andrew Morriss, William Bogart, and Andrew Dorchak. Or if you are in the mood for a shorter treatment, see “Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction,” by Robert Michaels and Robert Murphy, from our good friends at the Institute for Energy Research. Meanwhile, my AEI partner in crime Ken Green has fisked the European green jobs experience (who better than someone named “Green” to look into green jobs?) and finds that even with their high energy taxes and uber-regulation, they can’t make it work either.
And now repeat after me: the only true “green” job is the kind where the “green” comes from a genuine profit-making enterprise.
Also beware of Global warming: the new great “moral epidemic”. Consider what this Professor at Princeton University has to say :
William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, says global warming alarmism is the latest “moral epidemic”.
(It’s) the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. This contemporary “climate crusade” has much in common with the medieval crusades Mackay describes, with true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types, and even children’s crusades…
Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and, other things being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth.
Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about one degree Celsius warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere —about 2 ppm per year— it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increased CO2 will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, etc. are greatly exaggerated….
A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet, especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time?
Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research. Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, consulting fees and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.”
Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proved” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than one degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky, “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.
source : “The Truth about Greenhouse Gases” by William Happer : 19 page report
Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about one degree Celsius warming.
Fail — lies — stupid outright lies. I love how he just says “Trust me, I’m a scientist” and then asserts something without any reference to the peer-reviewed process.
The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increased CO2 will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.
This ‘physicist’ needs to go check out other relevant disciplines, like biology and agriculture. He just asserts utter crap because “He’s a scientist!” Wow. I’m impressed. Not.
The reality is that the best peer-reviewed science says that global warming will be catastrophic for global food production. Yes *some* places will thaw and grow more food than before. There will be a *few* winners. But mostly losers. And even if you are sceptical about the “more floods and more droughts” impacts of a hotter atmosphere, CHECK OUT WHAT AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS SAY CO2 ACTUALLY DOES TO SOME OF OUR CROPS!
Crops respond in different ways, both decreasing and increasing their self-defence toxins.
Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!”
Let’s just ignore diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death.
To simplify the argument, the 2nd ‘moral epidemic’ article claims that the ‘science’ is distorted by politicisation, through preferencing research that supports global warming, and through serious bias in the peer review process. Interesting idea, but somewhat extreme, if you take it to the extent that the science is completely wrong, there are no melting glaciers, etc.
Recently seen on fb: “Global Warming. If people agree with us they are scientific, if they disagree they are nuts. As seen from both the pro and anti side. The truth is out there , just can be hard with all the filters that we use.”
Re green energy - I’d say the idea behind it is to work with nature rather than exploiting it, as being more sustainable, and better stewardship. That is, if green is viable at all, which seems doubtful. As for money and jobs, they are part of our economic system, but what if we wreck the environment to the extent that capacity for ‘real’ production (of food for example) is seriously compromised.
More from xkcd:
The moment their arms spun freely in our air, they were doomed—for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally insane
I rather like the war of the worlds theme, but probably don’t agree with the actual point of view of the cartoonist.
As I was saying, we’re all on Jesus’ side, but obviously have different opinions on what is a Biblical perspective here, or what Jesus would actually want us Christians to do. Except that there seems to be a remarkable consensus that nuclear energy would be a good way to go.
“Global Warming. If people agree with us they are scientific, if they disagree they are nuts. As seen from both the pro and anti side. The truth is out there , just can be hard with all the filters that we use.”
This is a rather trite summary of the situation. The truth is science never knows anything with absolute certainty. Newtown ruled the planetary motions so authoritatively that when Mercury didn’t meet his ‘laws’, they invented a mysterious new planet they called Vulcan to explain the irregularities. It was only Einstein that corrected the theory of gravity by introducing relativity and the curvature of space/time in the presence of mass. It was only Einstein’s theory that explained the observable interactions between Mercury and the sun.
The problem with all the pseudo-science that Kevin keeps quoting is that it is not peer-reviewed. A good example is the billboard above that compares human Co2 emissions to nature’s vastly larger total emissions. The peer-reviewed science already knows and accepts those statistics, but does so in the context of the bigger scientific picture. So a lay person sees that billboard and thinks, “Wow, what’s all the fuss about, we can’t be making a difference. We just don’t emit enough greenhouse gases! We’re tiny!” But the peer-reviewed science knows that those massive natural carbon emissions are absorbed by equally large massive natural carbon sinks. They are like finely tuned scales with a ton of iron on each side. We come along and burn fossil fuels and add to that balance, and it is like we are throwing feathers on one side. Over time, they build up. The scales have already tipped. And we know it was us. There are unique fossil fuel isotope markers on the atmospheric Co2 that show it to be our Co2.
So it’s not that the sceptics have to agree or be called nuts. They have to engage with the legitimate scientific process — or show themselves to be nuts. These people will not hear that. It’s all a conspiracy against their “perfectly rational” bunch of lies and half truths that they repeatedly peddle to the ignorant. The Denialist’s are not playing the same game. They are cherry-picking out of context, hanging out with scoundrels and liars, and — in Lord Monckton’s case — even selling snake oil on the side. (He pretends to have a cure for MS and AIDS).
God gave us this world to enjoy and study. Science has blessed us with cures for many diseases and given us tools to limit disease, explore the solar system and galaxy and universe beyond, and explore the inner worlds of our DNA and genetic code. “Unnatural Enemies” explores this relationship between thinking Christians and science.
Denialism is not God-honouring, pure and simple. We should engage the science scientifically or hang our heads in shame. Engaging the science scientifically does not mean laughing at some clever Denialist propaganda poster the way Kevin does. It means asking honest questions and then going to honest sources to get the answers. Lee and Kevin have demonstrated that they simply don’t want to do that. Lee only wanted to talk politics, and Kevin? I can’t work out what is just a stir and what is genuine with that guy — it’s all jokes and cynicism and then suddenly a real emotional reaction seems to explode out — so I don’t know what to think of Kevin’s attitude to modern climate science.
I think the evidence is clear AGW is happening, even taking into account the possibility of pro-warming bias in the peer-reviewed science. I guess I wasn’t clear on that point.
The ambiguity seems to be how much warming. Perhaps there’s stabilising feedbacks or factors we’re not aware of. I hope! A system like the earth’s climate would have to have a good deal of inbuilt stability to maintain equilibrium for any length of time, I would think.
I changed that comment, and it was mainly about Kevin.
However, I do not see the science as having the ambiguities you describe in post 25?
But I do hope there are stabilising factors we are not aware of. Yet. So here’s to hoping that the peer-reviewed science discovers them, because I’m certainly not trusting material from the Denialists, and the climatologists I read are certainly not seeing the political action they are saying the situation demands to save tens or hundreds of millions of lives.
“Whereas if you go to people in Kenya, who are facing unprecedented drought and crop failure because the patterns they depended on have changed over the past 30 years; if you go up to Alaska, where villages are crumbling and falling into the ocean and have to evacuate because of this, you don’t find the same level of skepticism regarding the reality of the issue”
I don’t know whether I’m a doubter, denier or delirius but I think there is a problem with the Jackarandas this year. They are supposed to flower their majestic haze of blue in october- november and then grow their leaves.This year many of them are turning green before flowering. Has the world come to the crossroads? please explain Kevin or someone.
I haven’t heard of Jackaranda’s exhibiting anything different, but generally speaking the warmer seasons are arriving earlier and staying longer. Spring is early, Autumn is late. This article summarises a study about boreal forests that bud up to 5 days earlier than they used to — on average — last century.
From Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
... The problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world’s published climate scientists and the world’s major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools.
Excuse my bluntness, but it is past time to acknowledge that the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The sceptics have had the time and opportunity to come with up a convincing case, but their best efforts read like arguments that NASA faked the moon landing.
My colleagues working in the climate sciences have largely given up trying to correct the constant stream of misinformation from The Australian, in frustration.
The Australian’s anti-science campaign takes many forms. One is the inflation of the credentials of their fake experts. For example, OpEd writer and member of the Outdoor Recreation Party Jon Jenkins was referred to as an “Adjunct Professor”. Bond University wrote to The Australian informing them that this was not true.
Howard Brady was called a “climate change researcher from Macquarie University”; in fact, Brady is a 70 year-old retiree who has published just seven scientific papers (on Antarctic sediments, not climate), the most recent one in 1983, following which he worked for 17 years in the oil industry. Macquarie University contacted The Australian to set the record straight.
...
Dave, Thanks for your answer. Right on the ball as uaual. My reference library may have solved the problem of the Jacaranda’s( not Jackarandas). Jacaranda’s originated in the arid desserts of the Andes in South America. THey flowered at the end of the dry and then the leaves came with the rain. ( there was a distict wet and dry season like our tropicl areas) May we live to see that peerless blue/mauve haze again.
I should mention that Sydney rainfall last winter was 30% higher than the average.
[ Edited: 13 September 2011 09:24 PM by doug leverett]
I should mention that Sydney rainfall last winter was 30% higher than the average.
Yes, that was a La Nina year. The ENSO cycle is a fairly normal planetary cycle making some years hotter and drier and some years wetter and cooler. La Nina makes rain, El Nino makes droughts and super-fires. It’s as normal as a kid making waves in the bath. But just like a bath, if you leave the tap on, those normal waves are soon going to flood the bathroom and come running down the hallway, costing a fortune and causing all kinds of distress.
This looks nasty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JPQnsUOCaeE
“Food security in all regions including the US is now compromised by committed climate change.”
It shows where most of the world’s food comes from, and how these very areas will be most affected by temperature increases. Also how temperature increases affect crop yields. Plus, it refers to the effects of extreme events.
“The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — an independent study of Earth’s historical temperature record partly funded by climate skeptics, including the Koch brothers — has released preliminary results that show the same warming trend as previous research. Project leader and physics professor Richard Muller, of the University of California, has stated that he was ‘surprised’ at the close agreement, and it ‘confirms that these studies were done carefully.’ The study also found that warming in the temperature record was not caused by poor quality weather monitoring stations — thus rejecting a frequent claim of skeptics. Climate skeptic Stephen McIntyre has previously said ‘anything that [Muller] does will be well done.’”
You really know how to pick your sources Lee. His absolute Holiness, Lord Christopher Monckton, also claims to be developing a cure for MS, HIV, Crones, etc. ;-) It’s all good for ‘those who want to believe’ in this self-appointed saviour to the sceptics, light to the blind, and healer of MS. But to hard-headed sciencey types who want real data and peer reviewed science? Sorry! He just can’t offer up the goods.
Honestly Lee, do you even check the basic wikipedia entry before you quote these snake-oil salesmen?
Resurrexi Pharmaceutical
Resurrexi Pharmaceutical is stated on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) web site to be a company of which Monckton is a director. In the BBC documentary, “Meet the Sceptics” (2011),[48] Monckton, said he had cured himself of Graves’ disease an auto-immune disease thought to have been triggered either by a one-time virus or bacterial infection, and said he was researching a “broad-spectrum cure” for infectious diseases. UKIP’s CV for Monckton states that “patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex 6. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue.”[60]
There are no other sources than UKIP for the claims, and some scepticism has been expressed about their validity.[61]
Two patent applications in Monckton’s name are registered at the UK Intellectual Property Office
No answer from Lee to explain his quoting a known charlatan and fraud? Monkton is not even a Lord, yet prances about calling himself such. I’d be VERY careful before quoting anything Monkton wrote.
[null]Dutch Puzzled by Santorum's False Claim of Forced EuthanasiaNew York Times (blog)[{}]By ROBERT MACKEY The Dutch Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Wednesday on recent remarks by Rick Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate, in which he claimed, falsely, that forced euthanasia accounts for 5 percent of all deaths in ...
[null]Dutch Puzzled by Santorum's False Claim They Practise Forced EuthanasiaNew York Times (blog)[{}]By ROBERT MACKEY The Dutch Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Wednesday on recent remarks by Rick Santorum, in which the presidential candidate claimed, falsely, that forced euthanasia accounts for five percent of all deaths in the ...
[null]Stone LinksNew York Times (blog)[{}]Brooks and Collins discuss the surprising role debates over contraception, abortion and unwed mothers have played so far in the campaign. And what it tells us about the Republican nominating process, China and the future of the United States.
Stone Links New York Times (blog) Brooks and Collins discuss the surprising role debates over contraception, abortion and unwed mothers have played so far in the campaign. And what it tells us about the Republican nominating process, China and the future of the United States.
[null]Who Decided That This Election Should Be About Sex?New York Times (blog)[{}]In Virginia they're debating abortion and Mississippi is thinking about bringing back the personhood amendment its voters defeated last year. In Indiana this week there was a dust-up in the State Legislature over the Girl Scouts, and whether they ...
[null]Santorum Trails Among Women in New PollNew York Times (blog)[{}]In his re-election campaign in 2006, however, when he was soundly defeated by Robert Casey Jr., the son of one of the state's former governors and who is anti-abortion, there was not much of a gender gap. Mr. Santorum won 43 percent of men and 39 ...
RSS Feed