Pajamas Media

52 Comments

1. Terry Gain:

Dumb caption for a dumb articel. The kind of article that gives conservatives a bad name. We call ourselves conservatives for a reason. Conserving (and restoring) a healthy environment is common sense.

Anthropogenic Global warming is an unproven scientific theory. As the evidence mounts that global warming is not occurring the theory is fast becoming a hoax.

Environmentalism is not a luxury. It is a necessity of a healthy planet.

Nov 24, 2008 - 5:03 am 2. Roger Godby:

I imagine the rationalization is akin to that behind the statement: “But nobody I know voted for Nixon.”

Then again, it could be that if enough rich people buy enough of these gadgets, they’ll–wait for it!–trickle down to the proletariat and eventually become cheap enough for mass widespread usage. By which time they’ll be so gauche something else will have come along.

Nov 24, 2008 - 5:29 am 3. Valerie:

The problem with the current set of environmentalists is that they are too lazy to educate either themselves or their followers on difficult subjects involving mathematics, chemistry and physics. As a result, they rely on emotionalism, political sloganeering and outright lies to whip up support. In my opinion, portraying environmentalism as a luxury plays into their hands: the choice between a good economy and clean environmentally is a false one. Moreover, this has probably always been the case. We can and should insist on clean manufacturing. To do that, our policy should be to recover or modify actual pollutants, and not merely to restrict all animal activity.

Dirty manufacturing is more expensive in the long run than clean manufacturing: it exacts a toll on the nearby land and perhaps on the health of the nearby people. In this country, we have developed clean manufacturing and energy-producing processes, but we do not reap all the benefits because our tax and regulatory structure make it more difficult for a company to build a new plant with good quality control in this country than to buy a substandard product from overseas.

One of our current problems is that environmentalists do not promote sound environmental policy. These jokers don’t know the differences among carbon monoxide (pollutant), carbon dioxide (non-pollutant) and carbon (huh? Can’t tell. Need to know what it’s attached to.). The change in the subject from controlling carbon monoxide to carbon is pernicious.

Nov 24, 2008 - 5:42 am 4. David Thomson:

“Conserving (and restoring) a healthy environment is common sense.”

That is exactly correct! Environmentalism, the secular religion of the “elites”, however, is not common sense. Rational and prudent means should be welcomed to protect the planet. Ideological extremism must be resoundly rejected.

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:08 am 5. Wacky Hermit:

Valerie: Don’t forget dihydrogen monoxide– that persistent pollutant present in every river, lake, and stream in America, that causes many deaths each year when inhaled.

Ban dihydrogen monoxide!

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:29 am 6. seven:

One of my favorite pictures of an uneducated environmenalist cursing goal generated electricity is a smoke stack. When they see steam rising up from a cooling operation, they assume if is belching carbon smog.

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:44 am 7. Jonesy55:

“One of our current problems is that environmentalists do not promote sound environmental policy. These jokers don’t know the differences among carbon monoxide (pollutant), carbon dioxide (non-pollutant) and carbon (huh? Can’t tell. Need to know what it’s attached to.). The change in the subject from controlling carbon monoxide to carbon is pernicious.”

Er, I think you’re mixing up the issues here, I don’t think that anybody claims that CO is a major greenhouse gas, nor does anybody claim that CO2 is a pollutant which is harmful to the health of the individual.

As for the general issue, one of the major flaws in the pure ‘free-market model’ as even most of its ardent supporters would admit is that is is unable to account for externalities or third party costs/benefits and thus this leads to resource misallocation and inefficiencies. Governments can try to estimate these externalities and either regulate or tax/subsidise to compensate but this is an error-prone and largely subjective process that cannot be perfect. It also creates administrative costs which cause inefficiencies and so for many minor externalities, the costs are probably not worth the benefits.

On the other hand, the option of just pretending that externalities don’t cause problems with resource allocation and ignoring any market inefficiencies they cause is an equally subjective course of action and will inevitably lead to greater negative public consequences to private actions.

The way that national accounts work is also part of the problem in my opinion, a company must distinguish between current income and costs on one hand in their P&L accounts and assets/liabilities on the other in the balance sheet.

GNP rolls both concepts into one and so treats the depletion of an asset such as an oil field or forest as being equivalent to current ’sales’.

If a corporation tried to misrepresent its financial strength and boost its reported profits for the year by including the sale of say a factory in its P&L account while not reducing the value of assets held on the balance sheet, it would be prosectued.

This system means that as long as governments target a maximisation of economic growth, there will always be the temptation to use up as many assets as possible in the short term to boost the GNP figures even if this is damaging to the long-term health of the national economy.

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:46 am 8. Latest Pajama’s Media Article: Environmentalism Is A Luxury « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier:

[...] latest Pajama’s Media article is up over there and I hope you’ll read it. It’s nothing you’ve read here or [...]

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:11 am 9. EW:

the people who care about this are not just the wealthy or the leftist illuminati. A lot of times they are people like me who, though they don’t have a lot of money, find it a priority to drive to the farmer’s market to buy (cheaper than store) vegetables.. and go to the effort to drive collected recyclables to a collecction center every few weeks. Education and desire is also a very important factor… having a reason to care. Will you see people in trailer parks doing this soon? Probably not, but they COULD be doing some small things if they wanted to do so.

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:19 am 10. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Dumb caption for a dumb articel.

Dum comentr kant spel.

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:38 am 11. Jim Baker:

Environmentalism has been taught in our government school systems for over 30 years. There is no basis in the facts for global warming, one of the basic tenants of environmentalism, and yet it is still preached to the rafters in all of our institutions of learning. The recipients of this barrage of misinformation are generally not equiped to argue against it. Who is willing to fight the school teachers and their unions to get this pap removed from the curriculum? Politicians have become so cowed by the electoral ramifications that they are afraid to support common sense on this subject. That includes even the small percentage of politicians who know better. While everyone is concerned about whether “In God We Trust” should be on our coinage, or whether a nativity scene should be allowed in public, the government is busy making environmentalism into the State sponsored religion that the writers of the Constitution actually feared. What a damned mess, alright.

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:41 am 12. WJ:

This is to EW: Where is your cheaper than store farmer’s market? The farmers (plural) around where I live are most definitely more expensive than the local grocery stores.

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:15 am 13. Self-hating boomer:

A lot of times they are people like me who, though they don’t have a lot of money, find it a priority to drive to the farmer’s market to buy (cheaper than store) vegetables..

And all of that extra driving helps the environment exactly how?

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:25 am 14. Professor Guvinoff:

If Emotion is what you promote, your market penetration can be very swift. Should you, God forbids, try to push reason instead, you are going to need patience.

As we stand now, the tree huggers and the warmo-alarmists have performed their magic, thank you very much.

Could reason possibly catch up? Melissa Clouthier is offering hope. When cornered into a situation in which emotion itself is a luxury, reason has a chance to come up to the surface. Freezing your butt in order to feel warm and fuzzy inside about the trees and the birds is perfectly legal after all!

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:28 am 15. '08ama:

Is Sarah Palin posting here under ‘Valerie’ ??

weird.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:21 am 16. Don M:

I overheard a conversation at a restaurant between two environ mentalist types recently. They were referring to Teddy Roosevelt as an environmentalist. As I passed their table I mentioned that TR was a Conservationist not an Environmentalist, Big difference that. All they could do is stare rather stupidly.

Nov 24, 2008 - 10:13 am 17. Terry Gain:

Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer: Dumb caption for a dumb articel.
Dum comentr kant spel.

Too stupid to recognize a typo – as is obvious from the next sentence. Pee wee in more ways than one.

Nov 24, 2008 - 10:14 am 18. scot:

Problem is most of the Pop Culture environmentalism is based on consumption: Buy “Green-Product-X” because it’s better for the environment. There are even “green renovation” shows where they rip out all the “bad” stuff and put in new stuff. Never mind all the old stuff needs to be in some landfill now instead of being used.

“Buy this because it’s sustainable!” How about I don’t buy it at all and you don’t need to cut it down in the first place? I guess there isn’t a business to be made in “reduce, reuse, recycle” after all. Oh well I’m off to replace all my (currently) working lightbulbs with CFL lightbulbs NOW! NOW! NOW! because the news reader on the morning show said I was helping save the earth.

Nov 24, 2008 - 11:19 am 19. cedarford:

I always wondered if most the people who deny the scientific data that we ARE, unquestionly, in a period of global warming – are the people that push Intelligent Design, the concept of limitless resources EASILY gotten for an exploding human population through “new miracle technology”.

Clothier – Environmentalism is a luxury of the rich, pure and simple.

Not hardly.

Polluted water, acid rain, health-affecting smog effects 10s of millions of Americans, and in overpopulated 3rd world countries, water and destroyed arable lands affect population majorities. 8 of the world’s 13 major fisheries have been largely destroyed by overfishing.
As humans, we also have strong motivation to maintain wildlife habitat so we don’t have another human-driven mass species extermination event. And the average American does not think it is a “luxury” to have fairly clean air, be free of filthy rivers, drive on roads not strewn with garbage, and enjoy Parks free of dogcrap and 120 decibel music. But at the same time, have good jobs and the means to travel to enjoy various aspects of the environment…

Jim Baker – There is no basis in the facts for global warming, one of the basic tenants of environmentalism, and yet it is still preached to the rafters in all of our institutions of learning.

That is the sort of ignorance that make so many question the intellect of certain conservative Republicans that question all environmentalism and “them thar book writin’ eggheads”. That mean temperatures have risen each decade since the 1770s, save two decades of cooling attributable to massive volcanic eruptions, is indisputable, with solid recorded data. That CO2 has steadily accumulated in the atmosphere in the same period is also indisputable. No one questions the scientific validity of THAT data.

What IS in dispute is how much the CO2 (and methane) increase drives global warming. This is where “Movement Environmentalists” like journalism major and flunkee of law and divinity school Noble Algore and his sort become a problem. They demand, just like Creationists…that we take on a Belief, a Faith…that GW and AGW are one and the same.
And, like most Fundies who lack solid background in the sciences, they demand others hew to their beliefs and idiotic “corrective actions” which most people familiar with population growth, sources of CO2 generation consider of little corrective value. Liberals who hail the wonder of 3rd World industrializing and getting more goodies from using more fossil fuel….while reserving their venom for a small segment of humanity in the West. Who see environmentalism as a crusade. Where if everyone in a small town doesn’t use plastic store bags – they are noble – while the carbon offset is less than that lost from a new family in a high birthrate country like Pakistan heating just one new family home with coal for the winter.

It is a shame that so many Republicans fall into the trap of not only rejecting stupid environmental ideas, but feel compelled to reject all envirnmental science, concern of human overpopulation – into a position as asinine and ignorant as Algore’s.

That more people and more resource use means higher GNP, more prosperity for all, technology makes all resources limitless -all pollutants trivial.

Far better if we challenge the deranged elements Environmental Movement theory rather than appear like the dirt-ignorant crowd at the Scopes Monkey Trial.
A fine place to start is to stake our ground on the premise that imported oil and nat gas is killing American jobs and the economy…And putting all our effort into “exciting, alternate energy” to make up that shortfall while China and India can drill and burn coal and build nuke power plants to their heart’s content and have energy 10-15 times cheaper than “green alternatives” guarantees America’s decline.

We now have as Chair of Energy and Commerce as liberal a Hollywood Jew and Noble Algore supporter as there is – Henry Waxman – a man with a pol sci degree and law degree – who represents the moguls and stars in a District that goes from Malibu through Beverley Hills. As well as just about everyone who is anything in West Coast music, LA real estate, and the American and Israeli business execs who prefer to live amongst the Glitterati. His great power comes from being Hollywood’s Bagman to the Democrats. Any Dem politician that needs money from a big bucks West Coast notable has to go through Waxman..who happily informs them that “Barbara” or “Mr Spielberg” or “Geffen” is adamantly opposed to drilling off the coast, ANWAR, any nuke plants and continuing generosity means “support”.
Waxman hates drilling, hates nuke power, wants to “lock up” oil shale and Western coal to prevent “disasters”. He also wants solar and wind, just not in his constituent’s area or marring the “delicate California ecology”.

In a sense, zealots like Waxman may prove a gift to conservatives by being so extreme and ticking off the country not wanting Hollywood dictating our energy policy, just as long as Republicans avoid wahck-job slogans like “Remember, Saint Reagan told us all that trees pollute more than coal plants”. Waxman got in over John Dingell, one of the most senior Reps and a well-regarded one, because Pelosi did not want someone from the Detroit area in charge of Energy and Commerce, but a California Environmentalist Movement big money intermediary..Waxman.

As the fight for America’s future occurs, conservatives would do well to put down their Fundie sermon videos and abortion obsession and start learning the economic & scientific facts on energy better than liberal Dems like Waxman & Pelosi have.

Nov 24, 2008 - 11:26 am 20. tim maguire:

I always wondered if most the people who deny the scientific data that we ARE, unquestionly, in a period of global warming – are the people that push Intelligent Design,

Gee, never heard THAT ONE before! Did you think of it yourself cedarford? The factless gloom and doom is tiresome. If you want people to read your posts, either make them more reality-based or make them more succinct. Both would be best.

Nov 24, 2008 - 11:55 am 21. Jim Baker:

cedarford,
I deny your so called scientific data, which is nothing more than correlations of dubious information at its best. Computer correlation is NOT science. I do not push intelligent design (God) any more than you do. As usual, you attempt to discredit opponents of the preposterous global warming idea, by attempting to associate this viewpoint with other viewpoints that, you feel more politically confident, are preposterous as well. I believe it takes more of a leap of faith to believe in this enviro-crap than it does to believe in Jesus. Please stop lumping all conservatives into your proverbial Monkey Trial group.
Republican politicians will continue to dumb-ass it, as will Democrat politicians. Since all modern politics is sound bites and slogans, politicians will continue to spout whack-job slogans. It is up to the voters to sift through the silly slogans and faux crises generated by the politicians.

Nov 24, 2008 - 12:06 pm 22. kdman:

cedarford

not worth much effort as your mind is clearly long closed to reality. and in your “religion” of global warming you must be a high priest! but to put it succinctly. you are wrong. completely.

Nov 24, 2008 - 12:44 pm 23. Pat J:

22. kdman:
———-
Give one example where cedarford is wrong.

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:07 pm 24. Self-hating boomer:

That mean temperatures have risen each decade since the 1770s, save two decades of cooling attributable to massive volcanic eruptions, is indisputable, with solid recorded data.

Show me. I’ve heard some pretty tall ones from the warmatologists, but this tops anything that even Algore has claimed. Wow.

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:18 pm 25. cedarford:

Jim Baker – you, again, wrote: Jim Baker – There is no basis in the facts for global warming, one of the basic tenants of environmentalism, and yet it is still preached to the rafters in all of our institutions of learning.

And I wrote you back that your position is one of ignorance of the facts. Which are, mostly thanks to the Brits, over 4 centuries of detailed scientific measurement of temperature, barometric constions over a wide area of the planet. The data is further enriched when we look at the logs other countries maintained – which show we are indisputably in a period of global warming. We have other accurate measurements from geologic, isotopic testing that give us mean temperatures from other global periods or even epochs going back 100’s of million years.
The same holds true of CO2 measurements obtained directly from 25,000 years of ice core sample layers, and again – geologic and isotopic analysis showing how CO2 varied, along with temperature in far older epochs. We also have studied all other possible Co2 sources to join with the man-made amount – volcanos, forest fires – enough to conclude that 70% or more of the present 350ppm CO2 concentration is due to human activities and to scientifically extrapolate with population growth and present energy use trends, that CO2 will continue to skyrocket and possibly create greater harm…Some theories on CO2 impacting humanity may be at “upper band” of scientific extrapolation, there may be other factors.

Ignorant of this, you write: I deny your so called scientific data, which is nothing more than correlations of dubious information at its best.

No, detailed measurements and solid repeatable tests and physics is what it is. The only wiggle room you have is by religious theology or willful ignorance.

But the true conservative person is a person who is to hope for the best, in face of scientific theory, and yet prepare for the worst outcome.

The evidence is – direct measurement and testable result – not as you believe from whatever religious or ideological source you used – stuff just concocted by a computer model simulation.

Again, what isn’t known is the correlation between global warming and all the factors (CO2 concentration is just one) that could cause global warming. THAT is where your computer models and tests come into play – attempting to figure out water vapor, methane, photon density, radiative effects, CO2 interplaying to trigger warming, or cooling periods.

That Fundies are big in denying global warming is no surprise. They dispute similar scientific method employing similar tests that show evolution, show by isotopic analysis the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Within the Republican conservative base, an anti-scientific ideology flourishes.

Witness the example of Tim McGuire…The factless gloom and doom is tiresome. If you want people to read your posts, either make them more reality-based or make them more succinct. Both would be best.

It is the mark of a Fundie to dismiss scientific evidence they don’t like as “gloom and doom” – because, for sure, God will reward believers and make sure the Earth provides as much bounty as they want.
Just going into the briefest of rebuttals of conservative ignoramuses that dismiss the data about global warming vs. pinning blame on all of it on man…cannot be done in a concise paragraph your Scopes Monkey Trial crowd can get. (And if that grates, remember half of Our Republican Presidential candidates refused to raise their hands saying they believed in evolution theory)

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:22 pm 26. Jim Baker:

Pat J,
I am and I did.

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:28 pm 27. Good Ole Charlie:

Pat J:
The assumption that all people who don’t believe in AGW (I don’t) are fundamentalist Christians (I’m not). In fact, as a practicing teacher/scientist, I assure you that AGW is turning out to be – are you ready for it? – more likely to be part of a long term variation in solar activity. Which may well be leading to a COOLING cycle…
Talk about “Old Time Religion”? AGW and environmentalism fits that picture, almost perfectly.

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:35 pm 28. Self-hating boomer:

That Fundies are big in denying global warming is no surprise. They dispute similar scientific method employing similar tests that show evolution, show by isotopic analysis the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Within the Republican conservative base, an anti-scientific ideology flourishes.

That’s really neat how you made mincemeat…err….mincestraw out of that straw man. Good job!

Nov 24, 2008 - 1:46 pm 29. Jim Baker:

I am a geophysicist, not a Fundies as you call it. I have forgotten more earth science than you or cedarford ever learned. You cannot prove a theory by correlating statistical data. This is NOT science. The earth is over 6,000 years old. So is the climate. 400 years of measuring temperature only provides sketchy evidence of a very short term climate trend. These trends have been in play since the earth began cooling, which was considerably longer than 400 years ago. Yes, there are people that believe the earth is only 3,000 years old. But at least they measure their knowledge of the earth using 3,000 years of written information as their evidence. That is 7.5 times as long as the temperatures have been measured around even a small sampling of the world. You would convince me that global warming is a fact because you think you have 400 years of temperature measurements? There have been hundreds of swings of temperature, on this planet, that far exceeded what you can project from 400 years of poorly collected data.
The only measurable long term trend, since the big bang if you will, is global cooling. Can we have global warming? Sure, any time. Can we control it? Not with any current technologies. So lighten up with the ennuendo and name calling. Like I said, the theory of global warming is NOT based on science, but is believed with the same religious faith that is criticized so expertly by you.

Nov 24, 2008 - 2:25 pm 30. Thinking Person:

I have to say that as a mom of 2 school aged kids I find it tiresome to year after year have to deprogram them from the “the Earth is dying because of humans” tripe being pumped into them in the public school system. Yes, we are physically trashing the Earth so recycle, easy enough right? Have fewer children if it makes you feel better. Drive less. The simple things one can do are many and varied. But quit with the global warming lies!! I’ve read many articles on the subject but as a complete layperson cannot top Jim Baker’s wonderful answer. Enough scare tactics please! Things are bad enough with the economy and Israel and Iraq and Putin and Chavez and the government bailouts and …………….and on and on and on…….

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:00 pm 31. FLMom:

I think we need to make a clear distinction between conservation and the marketing of environmentalism.

We share a responsibility for he health of our planet. Conservation is about taking only what you need, living in moderation while preserving what we can. It’s being good stewards of our resources.

Those spending more money to buy green, or to impress friends with their environmental awareness are merely revealing their gullibility. I am particularly amused with those who buy organic vegetables and then purchase herbal remedies grown and packaged only God knows where and with the aid of chemicals that would likely be banned in the US.

If you want to know what’s in your food, grow what can you can and whenever possible buy locally grown.

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:13 pm 32. Terry Gain:

Silly Global Warming Theory Iced

http://www.americanthinker.com/gregory_young/

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_2.html

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:31 pm 33. Terry Gain:

Jin Baker referring to the intellectually dishonest and disingenuous cedarford.

“As usual, you attempt to discredit opponents of the preposterous global warming idea, by attempting to associate this viewpoint with other viewpoints that, you feel more politically confident, are preposterous as well. I believe it takes more of a leap of faith to believe in this enviro-crap than it does to believe in Jesus.

He’s pulled the same crap with me, calling me a Truther when I’ve never said one word that would cause any honest debater to think I believe a word of that insanity.

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:37 pm 34. cedarford:

Tery Gain – You are a Truther if you buy, as you, Gain, did in a previous thread – the conspiracy theory that Obama was secretly brought to Kenya from Hawaii, at great expense and risk to the pregnancy in the early 60s – so he could be born there.
It’s a nutty theory. Only Truthers swallow it.

*******************
Jim Baker:
I am a geophysicist, not a Fundies as you call it. I have forgotten more earth science than you or cedarford ever learned. You cannot prove a theory by correlating statistical data.

Why do so many global warming skeptics like Baker use the same language as the “evolution debunkers”? They usually start proclaiming their scientific acumen, then say that any evidence or statistical data cannot be used to demonstrate an obvious fact…which they insist remains just “unproven theory”?
Baker ignores my past post saying the Earth has had warming and cooling periods, or the matters still unresolved in factoring in CO2 accumulation and other possible contributors to determine the extent to which they, if at all, contribute to global warming.
That we are in a global warming period the last 400 years is indisputable to all but religious and ideological deniers.

I tend to be a skeptic on CO2 causing all the warming of the last 400 years, and I am extremely skeptical of the solutions and stupid little pieces of symbolism proposed by Gore and others of CFL lamps, magic solar power coming to save us from evil oil, horrible plastic shopping bags, and the idea that reducing American’s standard of living will somehow “cure Gore’s planet” while India and China and 3 billion other 3rd-Worlders are left to pollute away.

But in the debate, just as infuriating as ignorant Greenies with their stupid whale-love and windpower worship – are the ignorant, anti-science figures on the Right convinced that population and GNP can grow endlessly, magic technical solutions will solve all energy, other resource constraints. That all environmental concerns are “luxuries”. Where half the Republican Presidential candidates are afraid to say they believe in evolution as a biological mechanism. Where we find the same arguements against evolution and for ID recycled to use to deny not just AGW, but todays 400-year long GW trend.

Nov 24, 2008 - 4:40 pm 35. Terry Gain:

ceadarford

Where did I say: ” that Obama was secretly brought to Kenya from Hawaii”

You are a liar and too stupid to recognize the difference between expressing an open mind on an issue and insisting it is a fact.

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:36 pm 36. Jason S:

cedarford:

Please would you stop perpetuating the myth that the issue of global warming is “settled” and that no further debate is necessary. Plenty of debate is necessary. The extent to which our climate is changing has not been objectively determined without doubt – nor has the issue of whether or not we’re entirely to blame for climate change.

I will also take you to task on your complaint about pollution “effecting tens of millions of Americans.” The idea is frequently put forward that industry is “choking us” and destroying our health. But industry is without a shadow of a doubt the cause of our good health. The trappings of modern technology and the application of science to the problems of our existence have more than doubled our life average life expectancies in less than 200 years. They have slashed our infant mortality and death rates, leading to an unprecedented population explosion. The energy that we create is the lifeblood of our society and our well being depends on it. Perhaps you have forgotten that electricity and everything that results from it is what separates the relatively healthy lives we lead now from the miserable, short lives of hardship, subsistence and disease that we led before.

In short, the smokestacks that environmentalists claim are poisoning us are actually the lungs of our civilization. Only an idiot would claim that we were better off in the “pollution free” days before industry – when disease, starvation and the cold were the reality of the general state of health. Only an idiot would claim that a short, harsh life of 30 years or so in the “clean air” is better than a long, fruitful, comfortable life of 75 years or so in air that is polluted, but which harms our health far less than the absense of the industry that causes it.

I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t aim toward reducing pollution – of course we should. If it is economically viable to do so. Human lives come first and foremost though.

This is my view on fossil fuels: yes, it would be nice if we had the trendy “alternatives” that liberals delude themselves into thinking we already have. But we don’t. They are nowhere near the level of development at which they can replace other forms of energy. It is not yet known how long it will take to advance such technology to adequate levels. But one thing is for sure – doing so is going to take a lot of wealth. At present, the creation of that wealth depends on the use of fossil fuels. Or nuclear energy – take your pick. If we reject nuclear energy then we have no choice but to continue using fossil fuels in order to keep creating the wealth we need to develop alternatives.

I ofter hear the argument made that since fossil fuels are limited in supply, then we are “cheating future generations” by using them up as fast as we are. But this argument is a logical dead end. If we half our use so that they last longer, then all we do is delay the inevitable. The argument then becomes “but what about the generations after that? OK, so we half our use again, so that still more future generations have a share. But they will still run out. The only possible way to avoid “cheating future generations out of their share of fossil fuels” is to stop using them entirely. Then of course, nobody gets to use them. Might as well be us, might as well be now. To cut off our industrial capabilities and cripple our ability to create the wealth which will allow us to develop sustainable alternative forms of energy – now that is cheating our future generations.

Now onto “global warming.” I am of the belief that the climate changes with or without human influence. It warms and then it cools. All the evidence points toward this. So the question is “to what extent are we adding to the process?” If this is true, it means that even if we dismantle all of our industry and stop all emissions, the planet will still warm. Climate change is a fact of life and one that we, mere specks of dust on an inconceivably huge planet, cannot possibly hope to neutralize. At best we can slow the process a tad.

So obviously, humans need to adapt to climate change. This should be our #1 priority. If there’s one thing about this which is irrefutable, it’s that the wealthy are better equipped to adapt than the poor. They can build stronger houses, they can relocate, they can develop technological solutions to cope with the problems of climate change. In any environmental disaster, who suffers the most losses? The poor. Especially those living in coastal areas. The poor inhabitants of shanty towns are generally the ones swept away in their thousands when in floods, or buried under tons of rubble after earthquakes. What these people need in order to cope with the natural disasters which are a staple of life on Earth is a process of wealth creation in order to make them prosperous. In other words, the capitalistic, industrial process which has enriched the West. What the world needs is more industry, more capitalism, not less.

This pressing need is even more apparent when we come to think about population explosions and hundreds of millions of more mouths to feed. The days in which traditional, low-key organic farming methods are adequate to feed us are long gone. The world must embrace the development of genetically modified crops and more intensive methods of farming. Those who reject such advances and call for a return to “simpler” times are either completely unaware of the reality of the situation, or just plain anti-human.

In the wacky world of environmentalism, those of the latter persuasion abound.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:19 pm 37. Jim Baker:

Exactly, cedarford. You are making progress. I did argue that global warming is no more a proven theory than is evolution. The same methods are used to attempt to validate both theories. You see, when we cross correlate statistical data to find a predicted outcome, we always get a bell curve in our data. If we find our predicted outcome on the curve, we can only infer the probability of that predicted outcome within the limits of the integrity of our data gathering and our cross correlation parameters. We have not proven our predicted outcome.
By the way, I dispute your claim that the last 400 years have evidenced any global warming. One of the warmest periods in recent history was about 500 years ago. 130 years ago was a relatively severe cooling period. The last ice age was about 10,000 years ago. It has been warming on the long term every since as it usually does between ice ages. The last 10 years have been a brief cooling period. And don’t be infuriated with me when I tell you that I don’t fit any of your expounded groupings of deniers. I am not religious and my ideologies, do not preclude me from believing your 400 year claim of proof. I don’t think I am anti-science because I am a right winger or a right winger because I am anti-science, so you will have to place me in another of your perceived groupings of the stupid.

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:35 pm 38. G Alston:

#19 cedarford “That mean temperatures have risen each decade since the 1770s, save two decades of cooling attributable to massive volcanic eruptions, is indisputable, with solid recorded data.”

Absolutely correct, and utterly devoid of meaning. In 1200 AD it was warmer than the present. Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland. It then proceeded to get colder. The temp record you speak of reflects the natural climactic recovery from the little ice age where temperatures plummeted from the medieval warm period.

Do not reference the hockey stick. The blade is unimportant, but the shaft is a lie; it wipes out the medieval warm period. It is also incorrect, based almost entirely on a questionable dendrochronology study of a species of pine where the premise is that ring width is strictly a proxy for temperature and not moisture. Remove this particular data set from hundreds of other historical data sets, and no stick.

See here for a mathematical deconstruction that the layman can follow: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428

Meanwhile UAH and RSS are doing great satellite work showing that some of what has been modeled is in the ballpark but some key assumptions aren’t correct. The science isn’t perfect. You will see claims that isotopic ratios of C12/C13 or atmospheric CO2 prove that fossil fuels contribute as claimed. And so they do. However, what isn’t trumpeted is that this ratio is about 3%. Worse, the lifecycle of atmospheric C02 is in dispute. Some claim it lasts decades, others, 5 years. Why this is interesting is that it’s widely known that the oceans absorb and emit CO2 as part of the natural cycle. It works as last-in-first-out (LIFO.)

This part, I’ll go slow and use a crayon: what the above means is that the 3% figure essentially includes *all* of man’s contribution since the industrial revolution. Does man contribute via burning fossil fuels? You betcha. But at 3% this isn’t something I’m inclined to get my knickers in a twist about. There are reports that bovine flatulence contributes more greenhouse gas (i.e. methane.) There are also reports that suggest man’s land use changes change the surface temps as well (cf http://www.surfacestations.org for more info.) This suggests that man changes the planet, but it’s not necessarily your SUV doing enough of the job to get excited about, and that’s what a great deal of this environmentalist “warming” nonsense is all about anyway. Note that the $25B automaker bailout plan has been knocked silly by the democrats who are insistent that the entire enchilada is spent on green stuff (electric cars, batteries, etc.) Not that ABC wants to report THAT.

Somehow I’m not sure how discussing this without me cheerleading for the Gore team makes me an anti-scientific ignorant type, but there you go.

Nov 24, 2008 - 10:20 pm 39. Luke:

“This begs the question: Does anyone not want to care for the environment?”

Melissa Clouthier,
I hate to seem so peevish, but this really bugs me. You made the common error among journalists, and equated ‘begging the question’ with ‘raising the question’. To beg the question is to commit a logical fallacy with a circular argument. L2logic101.

But, good point… When people are in economic trouble, they don’t care so much about superficial environmental concerns. Way to break the mold.

Nov 24, 2008 - 11:37 pm 40. cedarford:

Sorry Gain – you make a classic Truther defense just as you did when people were called on declaring Obama a non-citizen. “That you retain an open mind, and the burden of proof is on those you accuse to exculpate themselves, to Truther satisfaction.
Same crap Truthers pulled on TWA 700: “We’re not saying that a Navy missile blew the plane up, just that we want to spread the charge around and retain an open mind about it until 4,000 people involved in the possible coverup – in Navy, NORAD, and the Clinton White House end their silence and respond to our many lawsuits. (Lawsuits filed as fast in another court as one gets rid of their Truther frivolity..)

Baker – As I suspected, you are an evolution denier. We are all aware of the sematics game Creationists play with “scientific theory verbiage”, and we see the same verbal game being applied by the same people to debunk global warming or the “scientific theory-only” that stem cell cloning would be of medical value.
Or the “untestable hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen” or the “theory, not fact that the Earth is over 6,000 years old.)

Better luck on the guillable you seek to have join your “denier ranks”. Frankly, the only two arenas that count are academic community buy-in and the vote of the general public. On both measures – creationists, GW-deniers, Young Earthers, Truthers, and other motley fringe-dwellers have mostly lost out.

Nov 24, 2008 - 11:49 pm 41. Terry Gain:

cedarford

When you can’t deal with arguments logically you make ad hominen attacks by accusing your adversary of being a member of some group which is generally perceived to be lacking creibility. Jim Baker described your technique perfectly.

If we are going to introduce the pejorative Truther into an argument it applies more logically to yourself and your rock solid belief in AGW – despite all the gathering evidence to the contrary. So why don’t you knock off the projecting and try elevating the dialogue? It may even make me less likely to call you names.

As to your last point the fact that the majority of the academic community currently “buys-in” (great choice of words) to AGW only means they aren’t keeping up with the science. (”The only two arenas that count…” It’s not a popularity contest bozo). And gullable is spelled gullible.

Nov 25, 2008 - 5:39 am 42. Carmen:

Idiotic, came to mind when I read this article. Maybe by some crazy coincidence humans are not responsible for harming the environment. Toxins got into waters because some bird pooped, impossible that some company dumped chemicals. Why recycle metal when we can just dig for more? Why bother lowering our thermostats? Dr. Melissa Clouthier is a chiropractor, so she knows better than us stupid people concerned with trivial things like health, sustainablility, saving resources. I have chosen to downsize my life, even financialy and guess what, I can’t afford solar cells, but I can do things like grow food in my yard (as millions of people are now doing); I can wear sweaters (5 days of 30 below weather last year) and keep my house at 61 degrees; I can use energy efficient light bulbs and keep my electricity bill at $40 and my water at $41, including garbage collection; I can garden organically and compost my vegetable waste. I can do many things, what I can’t do is keep ‘me’ people like our Melissa here from the mentality of worrying only about themselves, and who cares about who come after. Why not do like her, and let our children pay the consequences, global warming or not. Lush lands in the past are now deserts. No, it’s not humans fault, bad thing just happen (sarcasm in case anyone is wondering).

Nov 25, 2008 - 7:37 am 43. Jim Baker:

cedarford,
Wrong again. I like that evolution theory, although I prefer the word adaptation. I just don’t believe global warming or evolution have ever been proven. Please spare me from your always excessive commentary.

Carmen,
After reading your post, the same thought came to my mind. Try moving your thermostat to a much more comfortable 66 degrees and don’t buy sweaters. I don’t know how much your heating bill would go up, but it might save you a little. lol

Nov 25, 2008 - 10:26 am 44. Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Venezuela’s Opposition Scores Key Victories, the bailouts, and friends’ roundup:

[...] Just say no: tell the EPA Carbon Dioxide ain’t a pollutant The luxury of environmentalism. [...]

Nov 25, 2008 - 11:06 am 45. Carmen:

Jim, I paid almost $80 less for the same month two years ago, to heat my house – $48.71, here in northern Minnesota. I just got the next bill for $68.71 a 65% reduction. A few degrees can make a huge difference because the furnace comes on less frequently. Sweaters can be bought for $20, plastic and caulk to winterize all windows -$12.99. I can handle 61 degrees. I prefer it to the alternative. I have a gas insert in my fireplace if I feel too cold. Two years ago, I kept the house at 67 degrees, last year 63. Thanks for your concern.

Nov 25, 2008 - 11:19 am 46. The Absurd Report » When Environmentalism Is a Luxury by Melissa Clouthier:

[...] Read more from Pajamas Media [...]

Nov 26, 2008 - 5:26 am 47. Random Nuclear Strikes » Reading Material for the Long Weekend:

[...] Melissa Clouthier posts up at PJM on how eco-socialism is a rather expensive lifestyle to choose. What with the incoming Obama Administration talking the Green Game, forcing this luxury upon the American public, it could lead to an even deeper fiscal dip. [...]

Nov 26, 2008 - 8:00 am 48. Ster:

The best way to save the planet is Democracy, higher standards of living and business!

The writer is correct about one thing, being eco-friendly is more expensive than the alternative. China will never be an eco-friendly place until their standard of living in near ours. Same for other countries.

Right now, the US has more trees and forest land than it did 100 years ago. Why? Because evil big-businesses want to stay in business, so they plant new trees to replace them. We may have less ‘old growth’ forests, but new growth trees actually collect more carbon from the atmosphere than the older trees. Who woulda thunk it?

Nov 26, 2008 - 1:59 pm 49. January 2009: Backsliding on Energy and the Global Environment? « Fmmpjo’s Weblog:

[...] Let us hope so. The current economic slump may be imposing limits to the promotion of clean energy. With people worried about preserving their incomes today, protecting the environment may continue to be considered as a luxury. [...]

Nov 27, 2008 - 6:47 pm 50. Steynian 291 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] ON WHEN Environmentalism Is a Luxury, by Melissa Clouthier– “Save the planet or save money? [...]

Nov 28, 2008 - 8:23 am 51. Jeff Perren:

“sometimes an ethically challenging decision must be made because the higher value is the value of life. ”

Whose life? If you mean humans, not to many hard-core viros it’s not. Their misanthropy is legendary (though not legend).

Nov 28, 2008 - 11:23 am 52. Megan from ACCCE:

One thing many Americans don’t realize is how important domestic energy is to our country’s economic recovery and overall security. Currently, half of our electricity comes from coal—which happens to be our most abundant fuel resource. In fact, we recently kicked off the America’s Power Factuality Tour—a country-wide road trip in search of the people, places and technologies involved in producing cleaner, domestic electricity from coal. We started in Wright, Wyo., at the Powder River Basin, which produces more coal than any other site in the U.S. Take a look at our first stop at Factuality.org, to see how one of our most abundant fuels is keeping Americans at work and providing affordable electricity for families and businesses across the country.

May 5, 2009 - 10:09 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: