Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
Written by Young American College Student
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a our separation agreement:–Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’ Donn ell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–We’ll keep Bill O?Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.
–We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
Lora and Marilyn Taylor are discussing. Toggle Comments
Why are any of the things you list problems? If a model did account for ENSOs or completely for cloud cover, what would you complain about next?
That is the point. The models cannot account for ENSO, PDO/AMO changes, solar activity, changes in cloud cover, etc. They have not predictive skills so even the IPCC now claims that they make no predictions, just deal in scenarios.
Anything to manufacture doubt, which is the major goal of the denialists.
You are missing the point. There is doubt. It is the IPCC that is trying to manufacture certainty and consensus where none exists.
There will always be things a model can’t address. The inherent chaos in nonlinear systems, if nothing else. There are already some papers suggesting that calculating climate sensitivity with much more precision than at present is inherently undoable.
My point exactly. The IPCC and the AGW proponents need to recognize this and stop pretending that there is little uncertainty.
The question is, how good are the models in predicting the past, and how much accuracy do you need anyway? Models are fairly good at hindcasting.
No they are not. They can only be tuned to agree with past observations by the use of plug-in numbers about the effects of unquantified and little known factors.
All models show significant warming by 2100 – how much does it matter if it’s 2 C or 4 C?
This is not true. Some models show little or no warming. And it makes little difference if there is a 2C to 4C warming because such a change would be beneficial for human beings and life in general. As the studies show, the Sahara was covered with vegetation during the Holocene Optimum and human beings have always done better during warmer periods. It would be better for people if crops can be grown in Greenland or wheat fields can cover North Africa as they used to when it was warmer.
Uncertainties cut both ways. Models can underpredict as well as overpredict. (They’re underpredicting Arctic melting.) More and more model work is no guarantee the problem will go away. It probably won’t – there are very good, and very simple reasons to expect that doubling CO2 will lead to significant warming.
First, it is unlikely that human emissions can cause a doubling of CO2 concentrations because increased CO2 levels lead to greater plant growth and sequestration. Second, based on the theory used by the IPCC the direct effect would be around 1.2-1.4C. The only way to get a higher number is to assume positive feedback but that is problematic because there is no evidence of that in the climate record or the observations.
Whether the microphysics of clouds are precisely described in a model won’t necessarily matter much.
Wrong. Increased cloud cover in the lower atmosphere will lead to cooling. We already know that solar activity is linked to changes in cloud cover and to the observed temperature changes at all time scales without the need for plug-in factors.
Then there is the question of scientific uncertainty versus environmental uncertainty. The scientists will be calculating and making better models forever – there is no end to the number of features they could incorporate. But the potential problem is serious enough that society can’t wait around until they are sure about the third decimal point.
The models have no predictive power so they are useless. What you are relying on is narrative that is not supported by logic or any data. That leaves you in a very weak position.
We don’t have that luxury. We need to act now, because the ship that needs to be turned is huge and will take decades to turn.
But that is the point. You don’t know much now and can’t support the AGW claims with any empirically based studies. All you have is a narrative that is more likely to be driven by ideology than science.
It’s like insurance – you have to evaluate risk vs knowledge, and then you have to make a decision in the face of uncertain knowledge. All indications are that there is significant risk of serious climate changes with significant impacts on human societies and ecosystems. We cannot wait for perfect knowledge.
First, keep in mind that it is your side that has claimed certainty and nearly perfect knowledge. Second, you don’t pay $1 million to insure a $5,000 car so your argument has no merit. Third, the ocean data has shown cooling since 2003 and places like the US, New Zealand, Sweden, or Australia have not shown much warming over the past 80 years. Most of the warming comes from adjustments made to the data, not the data itself. The fact is that there is no material warming so there is no need to waste scarce resources to fight a non-problem.
Finally, davidappel writes:
This is ridiculous. No one is talking about collectivist planning or forming a communist state.
Response: Of course they are talking abut collective action. That is the purpose of the IPCC.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/ Blog discussion on climate computer modeling. commentor: vangelve
Comments on US History Standards from an Attorney and Teacher of the Constitution http://edlibertywatch.org/2011/05/403/
as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted temperature data from grant recipients with no scruples.
“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.”——Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R
It is already since a long time that I totally agree with you and all the decent scientists who deny the UN IPCC “settled science”.
My compressed conviction on this aspect is thus:
Earth’s CLIMATE is for ±95% decided by our sun’s activity and cosmic rays and consequently is not influenced by whatever quantity of CO2 there might be in our atmosphere.
CO2 ‒natural and manmade (only 0,001152%)‒ is an inert, colourless, tasteless, innocuous, very beneficial and indispensable “GREEN” gas, necessary for all life on earth to keep nature functioning as it did during eons, so there can never be “too much” CO2 in the atmosphere!
Exhausts and chimneys should even spew more CO2 unhampered!
Politicians with some knowledge and/or insight might understand this!
Immediately stop wasting trillions $/€ on the worldwide construction of all those totally inefficient windmills!
Build as many as possible ‒graphite covered uranium‒ pebbles-fed nuclear reactors to safely deliver the electric energy needed to develop all human communities on our globe!
we seem to be as far apart as ever, and remarkably, the issues are always similar… The freedom and independence of individuals, states’ rights and the proper role of government. Interesting isn’t it?”