Warning, political opinion from a grumpy conservative tired of being run over:

Kevin Treberth has recently made a post complaining about how his ‘travesty we can’t explain cooling’ comment was out of context. First, I find his explanations lacking because it’s not very difficult to see his context and backpedaling in the emails he’s complaining about, Kevin is one who may have worked with Jones to keep Micheals and McKitrick out of an IPCC report in which they were chapter heads. In a brilliant move of sophistry, they misdirected the argument to McIntyre McKitrick but that was not likely the paper being discussed in this quote from 1089318616.txt

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

The point is that Kevin is not one of the good guys, he does believe in what he’s doing is for the good of us all though. As is the case with far too many liberal minded, they are happy to force their incorrect views on us no matter the result. The article:

Two Sundays in a row ill-informed columns about carbon dioxide and climate have appeared in the Camera. The first by Bob Greenlee (Jan. 3) and the second by Charlie Danaher (Jan. 10). Both misrepresent me and my work, and in particular, quote from one of my e-mails that was illegally stolen: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” The quote has been taken out of context. It relates to our ability to track energy flow through the climate system. We can do this very well from 1992 to 2003, when large warming occurred, but not from 2004 to 2008. The quote refers to our observation system which is inadequate to observe Earth’s energy flows at the accuracy needed to understand small fluctuations in climate; it does not mean there is no global warming, as is often interpreted by the likes of Danaher. What is does mean is that our observing system is not adequate to fully track the energy in ways that allow us to understand and make best statements about the effects of natural climate variability: the La Niña of 2007-2008, and the current El Niño, for instance. It is absolutely certain that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and produces warming, despite Danaher’s wishes. Without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, Earth’s surface would be some 32 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it is now. Increased carbon dioxide will increase this warming effect, and both theory and observations are consistent with this fact. The evidence of this happening is widespread and abundant, so that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 was able to state with unanimous agreement from all of over 100 countries that global warming is unequivocal. But global warming does not stop weather from happening, and cold outbreaks continue and are fully expected. It does not stop winter. And it does not stop La Niña from happening and setting up unusually cold regional patterns of weather across the United States and other parts of the world that last a year or two. To misunderstand the role of weather and natural climate variability the way it is being done is to undermine much-needed actions in limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Global warming is happening. It will continue to happen and the way we are going it will jeopardize the very nature of climate on planet Earth some decades from now. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide, by the time it is so obvious to everyone, it will be far too late to do anything about it. Americans should be outraged that the Chinese are putting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and changing our climate! But by the same token, the Chinese should be outraged that the United States is putting nearly as much into the atmosphere, and historically a whole lot more than any other country, and changing their climate. We try to outdo each other in mutual self-destruction! Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is an essential first step to responsible management of our planet. The United States needs to show leadership on this critical environmental issue. Kevin Trenberth is the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at NCAR, and has been a leader in the IPCC, which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in 2007. See cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html. E-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu.

So now that Kevin has had his say, and his pathetic defense of his email which was quite correctly understood in many comments. In fact, try this. For his defense of ‘energy’ substitute ‘heat’ for every instance and you’ll see the context I’ve read it discussed in, is correct. However, I would like to address only the last item in his post, how it relates to the final outcome on CO2 production and the basic wrongthink so prevalent in the left headed.

Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is an essential first step to responsible management of our planet. The United States needs to show leadership on this critical environmental issue.

First, putting a cost for carbon emission has additional costs associated with it. After all you have to track emission in order to tax emission. This necessitates a massive bureaucracy for even the simplest version. In addition, it must be a global pan-governmental effort, which of course only the honest governments would follow. This of course requires control from a central oversight government. This brand new government would of course require oversight for corruption, which will occur, and an enforcement arm to insure that rules are followed, and primary individuals involved in the decision making regarding such taxes must be in place. Under the copenhagen proposal, the officials were unelected and empowered widely to tax and redistribute as they saw fit. It was a disastrous document.

Something tells me that Trenberth wouldn’t mind if only the US or Britan made the change even though he knows it would make no difference in global output.

Any of the above costs, any way you cut them are designed to limit economy. They place burden on energy. This burden will be passed to the consumer by big corporations through cost. All but the extreme left know that this will limit consumption and much of the left including Trenberth sees that as an ok solution.

However, it is wrongthink at its worst.

First, as many on the left do, Trenberth fails to recognize what has dragged people out of the worst and longest running situations of the human condition. Poverty. World wide poverty. One of the primary things we can learn from even a casual look at history is that in the past, starvation, plague, drought, infestation and strife were statndards of human condition. We lived and died with the same conditions as a hyena in the wild only hundreds of years ago. No medical technology, no fuel oil, no furnace or air conditioning. It wasn’t technically possible. These will be the first affected by the US’s dramatically reduced purchasing power.

Those afflicted with this thought malady seem to believe that the problem with the poor is that capitalists haven’t paid enough money to them. In reality it was capitalism, which only in the last hundred fifty years lifted humanity from this scourge. The capitalism drove the technology. This concept of wealth redistribution is so broken, and so OFTEN proven false, that it can only be described as propaganda at this point. Yet that’s exactly what they want to do with your money. Take it and give it to the poor guys in the communist “not-developing” countries. Of course the effects of such a policy are wide ranging, including the repression of the west with and basic financial enslavement of poor people world wide but if you can’t figure that out, there isn’t likely much use of me explaining it.

It’s the same kind of secondary effects that occur with taxes, US congress considered and is probably still considering a concept called PayGo. It requires an offsetting tax or revenue source for every new rule/law/right limitation they come up with. Similarly to Trenbreth’s and team’s faith in a carbon tax, this concept is fatally flawed and some say demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the functioning of an economy. In reality it demonstrates a wish to limit the evil capitalist economy but nobody says that. If you don’t understand this, you have been tricked. The amount of tax levied on an economy is a regulation on economic output allegedly in exchange for a greater service. The department of education is a perfect example of how that’s not always the case. Of course there is necessarily a balance where more tax will result in less income to a government and less tax = more income. As you can see from California and Michigan, and other international examples we have well and often crossed that line.

The point is, limitation of the economy is the goal of some of these people. Greenpeace is one such group who’s CEO admitted it straight out recently. It has nothing to do with improved service, it is limitation of prosperity allegedly for the greater gaian good. What this does to reduce CO2 output throughr a reduction in economic output and increase in price that will cause the poorest of the world to be pushed into strife and honestly into long term financial slavery. Consider what happens to the poor communities are using overpriced yet subsidized energy, if he CO2 money were to stop flowing what would they do? Remember IPCC says CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. Our save the planet goal can’t be to limit CO2 today, but the total amount released into the atmosphere over the next five to ten decades. The only way to do that, is through massive technological change.

Wind power stops and starts, solar is the same, wave power doesn’t exist, biofuel doesn’t work, the same foolish greens won’t let us use nuclear and we can’t make good electric cars because of battery technology.

Well if we realize we cannot make the technology to stop production of CO2 and our only avenue besides voluntary starvation is nuclear or improved technology. That’s got to be the goal.

So you need to ask yourself what would be the best way to create the technology? Tax the economy to repress output and hope the govenrment happens to pay for the right research? And to that, all you have to do is look at the recent hundred years of history. Where did the technology the world enjoys come from? I don’t mean which country, although it’s easy to see that, I mean which government style, where was the technology developed?

In nearly every example, private capitalist industry with a goal was the developer. The same private industry the leftists want to suppress, while placing all faith that the highly corrupt governments of the world will provide the solution they have never been able to provide in the past.

The answer is easy to see, what we need to do is take the shacles off our industry. Eliminate the foolish regulations on oil drilling and take control of oil prices again. Eliminate blockades to new nuclear power and damn the foolish ignorant ‘green’ masses. The solution will provide itself in 50 years, as long as we don’t voluntarily repress industry and science for the benefit of a few unelected politicians and the strengthening of an already fully corrupt world government. In my opinion, people with these left leaning views of ‘we should do something’, could not be more wrong but if you want to do something, if you really must do something? Don’t tax consumption, don’t limit production, that just limits science. Instead provide positive benefit for successful technology development.

Get out of the way of nuclear and some of the stupid non-drilling requirements and let the scientists and engineers do what they do best. It’s an understanding the IPCC, Trenberth and the team universally and incorrectly rejects.

But then I shouldn’t be surprised because it is a conservative view which goes against the method which would continue funding for the IPCC.



