Home > Uncategorized > The Global Statist War on the BuildingBlock of Life

The Global Statist War on the BuildingBlock of Life


I applaud Mike Kaulbars for not censoring this GreenFyre discussion which I see as rather embarrassing to the alarmists who seek to enlist the force of the Global State’s guns and prisons to suppress the welfare of the living for fear of an asserted future catastrophic effect on global temperature from the couple of spectral lines of the CO2 molecule which is the anabolic half of the respiratory cycle of life .

The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles  “challenge[s] the cult of the omnipotent state” . We see here the deification of the State and its agencies . The utterances of NASA are unequivocal and unbiased despite their guru Hansen comparing the coal trains which supply the electricity which empowers this very conversation to nazi death trains , and the condemnation of this fraud by their last astronaut to have walked on the Moon . Any group which questions the State funded view and believes in the superior intelligence , imperfect tho it is , of a citizenry optimizing the welfare of their families in a free market , undistorted by forced ( ie , State ) cash flows is denigrated and its arguments and evidence dismissed by the most perversely ill logic .

One of Harry Browne’s favorite classical liberal observations was that War is the lifeblood of the State . For the State to justify its use of Force , it must induce fear of an enemy . When it runs out of external enemies , it criminalizes its own citizens . In this iteration , the Global State is trying to criminalize our making a bit more carbon available to the biosphere from previous lush epochs to power our connected lives .

As sort of a Pavlovian experiment , I mentioned the pompous but talented Christopher Monkton wondering if it would trigger a cascade of abuse against all connected with this feared opponent  without regard the fact that I was abstracting an incident at a Heartland Conference where he gave me exactly the same crap about not even glancing at anything other peer reviewed publications which  the ecoStatists on the blog were dissing me with .  Yep .   Sorry blogs like this are the max I have time for .

There also was a bunch of twatter , siccing the Dunning-Kruger effect on those of us deigning to question their core science . It’s essentially the claim : You’re dumber than you think you are but I am as bright as I think I am .    Well , back at you , baby .

It’s been established that none of the alarmists in the thread know that albedo ( reflectivity ) never occurs in the calculation of the temperature of a radiantly heated gray ( flat spectrum ) ball .  That only comes in when you have a colored spectrum .

Here’s more of a highschool level question :

Here’s some basic data : thermometer records ( centigrade ) from some of the first cities to keep them going back to 1820 and beyond . Looks pretty linear to me .

Historic Temperatures

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is said to have increased from about 28 molecules per 100,000 to 39 over that period , an increase of about 39% .  Our temperature over that period increased from about 287.0 kelvin to 287.7 , or about 0.24% .  Assuming that total increase in our temperature is due to CO2 , what is the simple extrapolated increase in our temperature for another 39% increase in CO2 concentration ? Is that frightening ?

Weighing against that fear , one might consider how much plant life is starving for those extra CO2 molecules :

  1. June 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm | #1

    Excellent article, and also PP. Suggested for repost at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/ .

  2. simith
    August 22, 2011 at 5:16 pm | #2

    bizarrely terrible article

    Central England Temperature is not global. Second, the early part of the CET record is not reliable enough to derive short term trends. Third, calculating warming from CO2 as % increase in CO2 vs % increase in temperature is ridiculous. Completely ignores aerosol cooling and assumes the oceans have no thermal inertia.

  3. August 22, 2011 at 6:26 pm | #3

    Bizarrely stupid and uneducated response .

    Those thermometer records range over the most populated third of the Northern Hemisphere , from Minneapolis USA to St Petersburg Russia over periods of a 180 years at a minimum .

    Yes , the simple extrapolation of the rather linear trend over those close to 2 centuries and more ignores ANY causal hypothesis . As you should have learned in Middle School , it simply extends the record of the past into the future . Where is there anything in those data to claim something is radically increasing that slope ?

    If you want to get into the physics , go to my website . Here’s the most essential data : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

    It appears you have no answer to the undeniable fact that plants love any increase in the CO2 out of which ( along with H2O & ash ) they build themselves . Where does that boon to the planet’s productivity weigh in your “green” balance of good versus evil ?

  4. April 16, 2012 at 1:56 am | #4

    I’m not sure that plants love all CO2 increases… there are plenty of studies showing the opposite, especially when faced with dramatic changes that outpace natural selection processes that allow plant species to adapt.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

    What is scary to most people is the rate at which CO2 is rising is many x more than seen in geological samples and the fact that we are driving the CO2 w/o any causal temperature increase. These are unprecedented occurrences that should give anyone pause. Hopefully there is no real problem, but are we that vain to spit in God’s eye? There is as much money to be made in solving a problem (perceived or actual) as there is in creating one as long as there is a market. And government’s, at the behest of their people, can create these markets. I’m sure that comment is a non-starter on a Libertarian website, but it is valid Keynesian economic policy, albeit applied slightly obliquely.

    There were once 5 billion passenger pigeons in the North America but they were hunted to extinction in about 100 years of European settlement. Nobody really looked at their population dynamics and even when shown drastic decreases in numbers of birds, nobody believed there was really a problem (http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/dinos_eastern.php — see page 2 Ohio Legislature). “This species became extinct through the avarice and thoughtlessness of man.” – Bronze Plaque in Wisconsin commemorating the existence of the Passenger Pigeon

    Nice one there humankind. Maybe we can learn some lessons and be a bit cautious while we try to understand complex issues.

    I’d love to be wrong – it would be great if our actions in this case had no consequences. Can we really afford that attitude? And there will be no bronze plaques for us. Though perhaps another one from us that says ‘You are welcome! Good Luck!’ to whatever species next evolves to be the sentient keepers of our cosmically insignificant petri dish.

    • April 16, 2012 at 11:35 am | #5

      Too bad about the passenger pigeons . Sure didn’t make a dent in their urban cousins . Lucky that the bison were saved by some private ranchers who recognized the danger .

      But irrelevant .

      Zero oxygen , only CO2 , life emerges , photosynthesis evolves generating the O2 enabling the emergence of us animals and driving the level of CO2 down to a few molecules per 10,000 , only a few x the minimum to support their own life . Us animals do a pathetic job at converting any significant portion back to CO2 . Wildfires probably do as much .

      Plantlife has flourished at all CO2 levels up to that which would totally remove the O2 , certainly in more tropical temperatures than current .

      Don’t understand the reasoning behind increasing the “nitrogen” . I assume they mean NOx . I also don’t know what they mean by more “carbon in the soil” . Elemental carbon is damn near inert . It’s not clear they included the biomass they conjecture out competed the surface plants in their assay .

      I find most significant that “when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, above ground plant growth increased by nearly a third.” like the pine trees in the living graph I posted .

      In their Policy implications they use the anthropo-arrogant phrase “keep the world at the appropriate equilibrium” . Who the hell are they to claim to know that ? Plants have evolved and thrived at levels all the way up to total CO2 , 0 oxygen .

      Incidentally clearing forest for anything other than other agriculture definitely sucks . Several hundred square kilometers around here have been nearly naked for a decade since a jilted forest worker decided to burn her jilter’s old letters in the open on a windy day . Around the world , of course , the worst cause of deforestation is by poor populations for firewood in lieu of fossil fuels they can’t afford .

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: