“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, December 20, 2007

A Snowballs Chance in Global Warming...

From the National Post, Don't fight, adapt

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line

by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.
Hattip: Bobal: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

The hysterics have climbed on board and their train has left the station. The debate is over, their minds are made up and these stories have a snowball's chance in global warming hell. Just bend over.


  1. I think it's quite remarkable, and should be remarked, if what I read is true, that we were the only country to lower our emissions recently, and we didn't even sign the treaty.

  2. Dubya's holding them off pretty good.

    $4.00 Gasoline, and thin-film, and thermal solar technologies will slow this freight train down, considerably.

  3. To come at this from a slightly different perspective:

    Shouldn't we save, at least, a little bit of oil, and coal for the Grandkids?

  4. Rufus always comes up with stuff I haven't heard of. Thin-Film

  5. More Thin-Film Plenty of articles about thin-film at google.

  6. Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

    1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
    2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
    3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
    4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
    5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

    These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by ...

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academié des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

    NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
    American Geophysical Union (AGU)
    American Institute of Physics (AIP)
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
    American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

    I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

  7. Curious this report came out RIGHT AFTER the Bali Conference and 400 makes what a new majority opinion?

    This partial committee report is a fraud and the timing is giving me whiplash.

    Fact one - pollution is bad, fact two those making a profit off of combustion technologies (cars, oil, etc.) don't want to cut into their profit margin to make your food, water and air healthier - these are the same crooks who argued against acid rain.

    "I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report."

    Exactly Brewski - politics as usual but the hate Gore sites are going CRAZY - whew - if only we could hook up their venom to power our cars. In other words hating gore isn't a solution to our dependence on foreign oil but gives them cover to ignore Bush's election fraud, lack of military service, poor command of the English language, and skyrocketing deficets.

  8. "The telltale signs are everywhere..."

    a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

    Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.


  9. Brewski and Paul-I'd be interested--should we build nuclear power generating stations, or not? What say ye?

  10. Since I am getting clobbered with property taxes today, thought I'd give an example of the bullets we slum lords have to dodge all the time--this time from Poland---

    Hello Renter,

    How are you today, I am in a search for a room/Apt. My name is tessy am from Poland, I will be coming over to a university around for studies,

    I want you email me back if you still have the place available so that my Mum can look into it for payment and don't forget to include the cost of the room/apt and any other informations available

    .I will wait anxiously to read back from you

  11. The solution stares us all in the face, simple as pie.

    Human depopulation.

    Get mankind back down to under a billion folk, worldwide.
    That would certainly limit mankind's impact on mother earth.

    Seems simpler and more humane than to sentence 5 billion people to unending poverty, dispair and short life spans.

    Only challenge, choosing who the survivors are going to be.

    The North American Union's 450 million people, I vote for them to survive, let's allow the others of the world fight it out amongst themselves.

    I don't know any of them, so don't really care which make and which don't.

    Best reason for unilateral nuclear preemption I've heard of.

    Saving Gaia by killing off the majority of mankind! :)

  12. just culling the herd, that's all.

  13. There is no way to argue with that, Rat, you have hit the mark. A combination of Patriotism and Utility!

  14. Or do nothing and let Gaia handle the problem, herself.

    All the doomsday promises amount to the same effect. Let it come and the problems will solve themselves, within a generation or two.

    No sweat, the excess, unsustainable human populations will die off.
    In a natural way.

    Evolution at it's best, truest form.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. But if it's a US responsibility, we must take the authority and slve the problem for Gaia.

    Be proactive

    The Russians, they have nuclear and ICBM capacity, so we leave them alone.

    The Chinese and Indians and other Asians, they can all go, all the muslims in the world can die off with no loss to my lifestyle.

    That get's the population down by almost 4 billion. Africa could be depopulated, no worries.

    The Anglo-sphere and the Europe could then repopulate the world, with right thinking people.

  17. The Nagasaki experience shows that within a decade the effects of nuclear blasts have dissipated and the impact areas rehabitiated, at lower densities, of course.

    Gaia will be pleased.

  18. Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’Dominic Kennedy from The Times

    Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

    Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

    The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.
    I am searching to see just how damaging 'brewski' drinking is to the environment. Not good, I bet.

  19. Beer belches and farts, bob.

    The bane of mankind.
    All that hops & yeast, polluting Gaia's atmosphere ...

  20. Gotta kill all the cows, bob.
    Those farts, pure methane, the worst greenhouse gas.

  21. I can't seem to find an article right on point as to how bad beer really is, but it's gotta be real real bad.

  22. Thursday, December 20, 2007

    Dear robert,

    It is with my heart full of gratitude and a touch of sadness that I write today to tell you of my intention to end my campaign for the presidency.

    As a loyal friend and supporter it is important to me that you understand why I am doing this, even though you may disagree.

    For the past ten years I have dedicated my public life to the critical issue of illegal immigration. I believed then –as I do now—that massive uncontrolled illegal immigration threatens our survival as a nation. I could not stand by and let open border politicians and corporate lobbyists sell our country out to the highest bidder.

    Then earlier this year when I feared that the issue would not be championed by any of the top candidates I threw my hat in the ring. It was the only way I could be certain that the candidates would be forced to take a stand.

    Thanks to your incredible support look what we have accomplished:

    Just last week Newsweek declared that "Anti-immigrant zealot [that would be me] had already won. Now even Dems dance to his no mas salsa tune. " This month alone The Economist, the New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal and a score of other newspapers have written similar assessments, grudgingly crediting our campaign with forcing the issue of immigration to the center of the national stage and -- more importantly -— with forcing every presidential candidate to commit themselves to an immigration plan that calls for securing the borders, opposing amnesty and enforcing the law.

    Of course, many of the candidates need to be pinned down on their understanding of the meaning of amnesty, but we have succeeded beyond my most optimistic expectations of a year ago. We even have Hillary jumping through hoops on the issue!

    So with so much success why drop out of the race now, you are probably asking. For one reason and one reason alone: I believe the cause demands I do so.

    The presidential campaign has come down to less than a handful of viable candidates. Unfortunately several of them have abysmal records on immigration and can’t be trusted to do what is needed to preserve this country if they’re elected. My fear is that if I were to stay in this race my votes could be the factor in handing victory to a pro-amnesty politician. Friends, we have done too much, come too far and the stakes are too high to play that hand. And so I am ending my presidential campaign.

    I know there are many more battles in our future and you can count on me to stay in this fight with you. We must continue to build the unquestioned momentum that is fueling our movement today. In the weeks ahead, I will write to you again to share with you my plans for the future, and for the immigration reform movement that is transforming American politics.

    But for now, I just wish to again express to you my deepest thanks and appreciation for your partnership with me in this historic effort. I also want to wish you a very blessed and merry Christmas!

    We have come so far together, and through our efforts we have made a stunning and, I believe, permanent impact on the debate over securing our borders and preserving our nation.

    Not a day has gone by in this campaign that I have not thanked God for the dedication of so many Americans like you. I can promise you that as long as He gives me life and strength, I will work hard for our cause and to honor the trust you have placed in me.

    With sincere best wishes,

    Tom Tancredo

  23. The two largest populations in the World, their representitives refuse to accept responsibility.

    The US is lessening it's footprint, as each year goes by. The Chinese and Indians creating ever greater footprints, with each passing day.

    But if the solution is for US to find, it'll be unilateral and will not adversely effect US.
    Or the US politicians will be replaced, the politically motivated adversity reversed by their replacements.

    Be careful what you wish for.
    May get it.

  24. Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney

    U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo announced today he's ending his long-shot bid for the White House.

    The Colorado Republican made his exit from the race official at a press conference this afternoon in downtown Des Moines. He'll throw his support behind GOP candidate Mitt Romney, he said.

    Tancredo's name was most associated with his fight against illegal immigration, one of the presidential election's most controversial issues. But his hard-line approach to curbing the unlawful migration of millions across the United States' southern border wasn't enough to vault him from the back of the GOP field.

    He registered 6 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers in the most recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.
    Sam had it right. And wins virtually nothing.

  25. 1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

    0.6 Degrees C. in 110 years? Highest Temp. (maybe) 9 years ago?

    Temps lower than during the Medieval Period, and a LOT lower than during the Mid-Halocene?

    I don't know. I'm having a hard time getting past No. 1.

  26. Rufus makes the best point. I always thought the first Europeans that clear cut all the forests had no consideration for future generations. Why would we want to repeat the mistake and use all available oil and coal energy resources with no consideration for the future?

  27. You Americans could lessen the carbon footprint by attacking your stray canine and felines. The Humane Society could become a lean meat exporter to Asia.

    Behold the flavors of the Pacific Century!

    I don't really like cat unless you marinade the heck out of it.

    I'm sure Doug has no reservations eating the burger born of his culture's veritable beef-locaust.

    "Abandon all hope, steer who enter here"

    Big question is: at what price point does national mass food distribution become less preferable to reigonal and locally distributed food? If fuel is high enough, you'll only have cats and dougs in many urban and metropolitan areas.

    The guest workers would oddly enough have primo access to cheap high quality beef, as they could buy it without the fuel price for lengthy distribution

    I'm willing to bet thats a very high price point.

    Still, its where things are going. Local sources. Local control. Local responsibility.

  28. At RCP:

    December 20, 2007
    A Middle East Transformed? Hardly
    By Gregory Scoblete

    Read it.

    (And while we're on the subject, the author brings to mind a thought we've had occasion to mull over the past three years: Strategically, OIF made sense if the object were to set up the Iranians and their client friends in Baghdad as a counter to the Saudi Arabians. In fact, it is the only way OIF made strategic sense. Not being the object sought or opportunity seen, however, we continue to grapple with senselessness.)

  29. Doug would come with alot of hawaiian seasoning which is good, as humans taste a bit like pork.

    Doug, are you sedentary man, a gentelman of the chair? You don't run or anything do you?

    If you examine very high-level chinese grand strategy, you'll see that we model america as a land of juicy corpulent morsels bristling with weapons, like cacti full of double bacon-wrapped pork, absurd as it is.

  30. from Bugwood

    Forests and timberland


    The U.S. has one of the world's largest and most productive forest resources. Most of its forests are managed on a sustainable basis and are concentrated along the eastern and western coasts and lake states, close to major ports.
    The U.S. has 2,263,259,000 total acres of land area. Thirty-three percent, or 736,681,000 acres, are classified as forested acres (forest lands). Federal ownership is 34 percent of total forest land.
    Overall, annual growth of U.S. forested acres exceeds harvests and losses to insects, fire, and disease by 33% each year in the commercial forests.
    Two-thirds of U.S. forestlands contain forests capable of growing 20 cubic feet of commercial wood per acre per year.
    U.S. timberland ownership is 59 percent private non-industrial, 14 percent forest industry, 10 percent national forest, and 17 percent other public.
    Altogether, federal, state, and local governments own 131 million of the 490 million acres or 27 percent of commercial timberland in the U.S.
    More than 270 million acres of federal land are set aside by various government agencies for use as wildlife refuges, parks, and wilderness areas.
    Some 36 million acres of U.S. timberlands are reserved for non-timber uses through special legislation.
    More than 10 million acres of old-growth forest can be found in Oregon, Washington, and California.
    The U.S. has 8.25 million acres of old growth forest on federal lands in Oregon and Washington alone. More than half (57%) is preserved in parks, wilderness areas, and other legislative and judicial set-asides.
    Approximately 7 million non-industrial private forestland (NIPF) owners hold 288 million acres of timberlands in the U.S.
    In the U.S. only about 600,000 NIPF owners, or 8.7% of total owners, have holdings larger than 100 acres.
    The nation's forest land area is still about two-thirds the size it was in the year 1600, in spite of the conversion of 370 million acres of forest land to other uses, principally to agriculture.
    More trees are growing in America's forests today than at any time since the early 1900's.
    In 1900, forest growth rates were a fraction of harvest. Today, overall annual forest growth exceeds harvest by 37%.
    Net annual forest growth has increased 62% since 1952, and total growth per acre has increased 71%.
    Nationally, standing timber volume per acre in U.S. forests is 30% greater today than in 1952.

    On a per acre basis, net annual tree growth in the U.S. is 52 cubic feet compared with 27 in Canada and 24 in Russia.
    Annual growth in National Forests now exceeds harvest by more than 55%.

    47% of the nation's standing softwood sawtimber inventory is located in federally-owned National Forests.
    70% of America's National Forest land base is in land-use categories where timber production is forbidden. 30% remains open to varying levels of harvest activity.
    Net loss of U.S. forests from roads, buildings, and urban expansion is expected to be 28 million acres over the next 50 years, by the year 2040.
    We are doing well in managing the forest in the USA these days. The U of Idaho has one of the best Forestry Schools around. The old clearcutting method--you can still see the scars--is mostly over now. In some regards we are doing better than Canada, as stewards of the enviroment.

  31. How about a little Chinese takeout?

  32. Yeah, Doug is definitely not getting his Harry and David Christmas Deluxe Holiday Tower of Treats from CPC this year.

    In fact, I'm cracking open the mixed nuts and enjoying the "blushing crisp apples" right now. Maybe without that illegal and immoral war, I could afford to send these overseas...

  33. And rural socialite Bobal doesn't need a gift basket as he'd only do something absurd and hedonistic with it, being the dilettantish dandy he is.

  34. Tancredo identified former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Arizona Sen. John McCain as two Republican candidates whose records indicate they wouldn't be tough enough on immigration.

    He said Romney has a proven record of opposing illegal immigration while governor of Massachusetts, ending driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

    "On the other hand, you talk about what's happened in Arkansas, it's a totally different situation, and certainly John McCain has built a career in Congress being a supporter of illegal immigration and amnesty," Tancredo said.

    Vote Romney '08

    Hudat--write to the Oregon Secretary of State, you too can probably vote.

  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

  36. Bob your figures are correct in raw numbers. The northeast is a good example in that the original forests were taken down for firewood and timber but mostly burned for crops. With the opening of the railroads, farming moved west and the eastern farms became unprofitable. The fallow fields with re-growth trees are called forest but are hardly comparable to what was cut and burned. It would take a combination of five or six hundred years and four or five major burns to reestablish the natural eastern forests.

    The lowlands in the east were probably slashed and burned for at least ten thousand years by the Indians.

    Ironically the entire northeast has been stripped a a half a dozen times by glacial incursions and then re-grown after glacial retreats during warming trends. That did not happen in China and that is why there are many more tree species in China.

  37. welcome to the EB, brewski and Paul Burke

  38. Bobal that Time Magazine global cooling article from '74 was a gas. I wonder how many people who got burned and bought that one got burned again thirty years later and bought the global warming one. Maybe in 2034 Time Magazine can dust off the cooling one again and make another quick buck.

  39. Yes, Bob; Great link.

    The article didn't mention that the "Coming Glaciation" Crowd back in 73' used computer models from . . . . wait for it . . . . . . The Olde Globaloniast, his damn self, James (we're a'burnin up) Hansen.

  40. Not only does nothing under the sun never change, the cycles are getting shorter.

  41. 2012, the sun spots become hugh, the solar energy overwhelms Gaia's magnetic core and the poles shift.

    Causing mass extinctions, flash freezing the area of the new poles, much like the shift that froze the wooly mammoths in what had been semi-tropical Siberia.

    The Mayans forecast it for 21Dec, 2012, must be true?

    The mammoths were flash frozen in what had been a very moderate climate.
    Something major happened, quickly, then.
    Could it happen again?

  42. You been listenin' to too much Coast-To-Coast, Rat:)