Ice Age Cancelled: Deniers Destined for Disappointment

Thu, 2011-06-16 15:52Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Ice Age Cancelled: Deniers Destined for Disappointment

The web is alive with idiotic commentary this week after the American Astronomical Society’s solar physics division heard three new studies, all pointing towards declining sunspot activity into the next decade.

But while the least professional journals (see the Financial Post link above) presented only the possibility that reduced solar energy could chill the planet, even sometimes-skeptical newspapers such as The Telegraph responded to the responsibility to include some scientific response confirming that a Grand Solar Minimum, even if one occurred, would not be sufficient to offset the effects and dangers of human-induced global warming.

For more complete looks at the goofy claims of an impending ice age, and more thoughtful presentations of the science debunking such a chill, check out Bad Astronomy, Peter Sinclair’s take on Climate Denial Crock of the Week or Joe Romm’s at ClimateProgress.


Now, where's the cost for removing famine et al?

That's true enough. On the other hand, I saw a very interesting proposal to use increased albedo via salting the clouds to postpone global warming for a hundred years, for the cost of nine billion, period. That sounds like a good investment to me.

Or what about a manhatten project to find a substitute for oil? Remember, that would have the added nice effect of bankrupting regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan.

Now IF and thats a big if, the AGW hypothesis is correct, (I dont buy it but..) That would be a far more reasonable approach than the one being proposed.

I suspect the solar minimum we are heading into will take care of it anyway but thats another discussion.

The big problem I have is..... All the practical solutions like what you just mentioned are summarily dismissed in favour of Drastic changes to the world order.
Because the real goal is not to fix anything, it is to use the "crisis" to redistribute wealth, redefine global government, impose global socialism and just along the way, make a few powerful people obscenely rich.

Go look up the origional mission statement of the Club of Rome.
It will shock you, then look at the members list. that wont shock you.


The Khmer Rouge were monsters barely equalled in human history, but that does not make the American record in Vietnam any less shameful.
Everyone knows what to think of the Nazis, but that does not make the great depression any less of a disaster.

Likewise, the fascistic nature of the Green movement does not make Anthropogenic Global Warming any less real or any less of a problem. Now, about that fascistic nature, I can point you, without undue modesty, to my own comments in the following threads:

And so on. I think that I can make this case a lot better than you can.

However, let me repair to this point: if you want to get into this argument, you can, but you cannot get into it hurling unjustified insults at decent scientists, or pretending you know more than what the experts will say in the published literature. Case in point:

"I suspect the solar minimum we are heading into will take care of it anyway but thats another discussion."

The trouble is that the scientists seem to largely disagree with you. Over on BadAstronomy there is a very good discussion of this, with lots of links to the primary literature in the comment thread:

Come on, hop over, pull yourself up a chair and you may learn a great deal.

Hugo... LOL...

"you cannot get into it hurling unjustified insults at decent scientists, "

Actually I can. As long as the tone on this blog is what it is, I can.
The whole theme of Desmog is to smear hard working honest researchers for political reasons.

Its just that sort of site... Or have you not noticed?

And if you look close, I said "I suspect".
That would indicate that it is my opinion.
Now that opinion was developed over years and hundreds of hours reading, but I have found the arguments for Solar forcing very convincing.
You may not have... Cool... But all that means is that we disagree.

I dont recognize "your" scientists and being any more credible than "mine" so..... I can indeed say what I have said.

The history of science is full of examples of concensus positions being profed wrong by small numbers of (or one) scientists that disagreed.

Nothin new or unusual now.

Listen, I have just emerged from a very tiresome argument with a moron who similarly awards himself the right to behave in this way. I have tried to be civilized about this, but my nerves are stretched very thin at the moment. If you have an ounce of honest curiosity in yourself, you will knock this stuff off, and do so soon.

You don't "have" scientists, sunshine. Nor is the history of science full of "concensus positions" "profed" wrong by a handful.

He has to do this since real life insults him all the time, it's only in cyberspace he can feel like a man (tm).

We've been at this solar minimum for two-three years and it hasn't stopped the warming.

2010 joint hottest year on record, 2011 looking to beat it.

The manhatten project. et al...etc..

all good ideas. And in their time will likely all work out fine.
but they should be sold on their own merrits.

I would love to have an electric car that goes 400 miles on a charge and charge it form my home Throium reactor.

Those things will also come in their proper time. But now is not the time and we have some really important problems that need to be dealt with now.

Unfortunatly, with the current hype over plant food, the real problems will go to the back burner.

its infuriating.

Well, all things have to be sold on their own merits, and that is why they are all debated at extremely high level in the scientific literature and so on. So why don't you learn a little about the debate and maybe make a serious contribution, and not make stupid jokes about thorium motors?

I have _no_ idea what you are talking about when you say "plant food".

\"We KNOW implementing a carbon tax wont damage the planet that we all have to share"

We know that that will be catastrophic for the poorest of the poor on whom it is forced - you know, those Africans to whom you condescend so slimily.

"We know that that will be catastrophic for the poorest of the poor on whom it is forced -"

I can't see how Hugo. Third world countries are largely exempt from any binding commitments & the poor in first world countries have compensation & rebate packages.

"you know, those Africans to whom you condescend so slimily."

I paraphrase Lomborg ( who I disagree with) & suddenly they are my thoughts & motives? Get real. It's not my fault you have a comprehension problem.

Thanks for the heads-up. It's a deeply irritating stance on his part.

Final comment.

I stand by all my comments, Dont care at all wheather you like them or not and will continue to point out the truth and the idiocy of AGW.

I suggest you do a little research yourself and stop believing the Dogma just because you have FAITH.

And I will most certainly continue to make jokes about this silly non issue because it is just too idiotic to ignore.

And just FYI; CO2 is nothing more than harmless plant food.

"CO2 is nothing more than harmless plant food"

Keep saying that. It helps people know how seriously to take your knowledge of the living world. It is also clear that you feel that because a small amount of something is good in one aspect, larger quantities of it could not possibly have a harmful impact elsewhere. What experience in your life could possible lead to such a strange brand of logic. Actually think about that, rather than just reacting. It will improve your debating skills.