Remember the Ozone hole that was going to expand and make everyone wear SPF 5000? Some scientists assured us that all we needed to do was ban choloflorocarbons from hairspray, and we'd handle it. So, after some wrangling, we did.

Why did it work? Well, as it turns out, there were many workable substitutes: not all as good, initially, but with a little work, they've improved enormously. As with all substitutions, they have other effects, some of which we are now concerned with. They propose practical problems, and, as with all practical problems, they can be solved after some work, the only remaining question being whether it is necessary to solve it now, or adopt it gradually over a period of years.

But one other note: the analogy that supported the original research appears to have been just an analogy, and not a scientific fact. There's a relationship there, but it may be as a contributory cause, rather than as a main one: the ozone hole reached its second-largest size in 2003 (not a reasonable prediction after the ban). Should something have been done? Yes. Does more work need to be done? Yes. Did the panicky people calling themselves "environmentalists" deserve to be ridiculed for the wacky nature of their vision of the future based on their misreading of the original reports and testimony? Yes.

And that's the problem. Global warming. Need to talk to someone who isn't ridiculous about what is necessary other than the centuries long movement away from carbon heavy fuel sources toward hydrogen. I think we need to do more of that: and I see that Shell Oil agrees (as they would, given that they are in a position to act as distributor). It seems to me that we're missing two thoughts about global warming: 1. Is it a problem compared to the current state of affairs? 2. Is it hard to manage if it is? So far, I don't think there has been much effort spent on these two questions.

UPDATE Once again, we are being lied to about the environment by the UN, and the hysterical ninnies that want to shut down all objection to their weirdly stupid politics by pretending that their politics are "scientifically proven". This little omnibus of environmentalist myths will doubtless be cited by someone near you. Smile gently. Step away from sharp objects. Ask a few minor questions: "We are feeding successfully people all over the world, more than at any time in history. Do you think these people are important?" "Have you ever driven from coast to coast in the US? Did you see the uninterrupted urban landscape?" "Are you aware that by almost every ecological measure, things have gotten better, not worse, since Earth Day in the 1970's?" "Do you have any memory of the prior hysterical headlines and stupid reports which pretended to describe problems as more severe than they were?"

Yes, that's the Guardian. Like the New York Times, a newspaper with pretensions to intelligence, and, like the New York Times, a newspaper which frequently showcases the opposite.

I admit I'm a little hard put to understand how paganism triumphs so easily here, attributing intent and emotion to inanimate things. But, as a Christian, I don't have to worry about it, so I get to make fun of it all I want.

From Strata-Sphere:

Let’s assume the earth’s atmosphere was a 6 ounce cup of tea. And let’s say we used a teaspoon of warmer water to measure in the last of the 6 ounces of tea and to heat it up. This teaspoon is the CO2 portion of the total green house effect.

Clearly the teaspoon’s worth of water would not change the temperature of the 6 ounces of tea much at all. That teaspoon is roughly 3.6% of 6 ounces, which is the C02 component (3.6%) of the greenhouse effect which is dominated by water vapor. But as the SCIENCE points out, humankind’s activities only account for 3.2 percent of the teaspoon. Since a teaspoon is equal to 5 ml, then mankind’s effect is like trying to put 0.16 ml into the 6 ounces of tea. If you have a medicine dropper in your house with tenths of a ml measurements you can visually compare man’s effect on climate with your 6 ounces of tea. That should help Caprio get his ‘mind around’ this siuation. Try it out. Try and cool of the tea or heat it up. I doubt you have a temperature measuring device that could detect the difference in temperature from .16 ml.

For reference, a drop of water is about .2 ml. Amazing what a sense of proportion can do, eh?

Lamark's theories of evolution have been widely discredited almost everywhere.

Almost?

Well, as it turns out, take a bus trip at the San Diego Zoo: they still go for it. Listen to the driver expound on how animal choices are passed on to their children. Wonder about its genetic basis. Realize that giraffes might not make all those choices.


Keep wondering.

But enthusiasm for environmentalism? Right up there. Goes along with my general theory that the only people who are enthusiastic environmentalists are those who can't follow biology, and its sub-discipline, ecology, because they don't want to do all that science stuff.

The key to understanding math, statistics, & science in general is to remember two things: first, the only real things are numbers. Second, numbers presented to you were generated to get a specific response at least 80% of the time: be suspcious of them.

Let's talk for a moment about "expertise" in biology and climate.

First, we had "experts" who told us that we were to be on the alert for massive numbers of AIDS cases contracted "heterosexually." Stories in the media thrummed with the beat. Sadly, the results indicated that it was bad statistics, not AIDS, that we were suffering from.

Climate change. Check this out. Check out the other posts on Thoughts Online Magazine on the subject. Now we have speculation in advance of the facts masquerading as knowledge. This from the same type of scientists who can't predict the weather from year to year with any certainty.

Federal weather officials had been saying for months that the region would have a wet winter, but the Southland hasn't recorded significant rain since May.

NOAA said the latest weather and ocean temperature data now show that El Niño will have "minimal effects" across California and the rest of North America, following the lead of other forecasters, who in recent weeks said El Niño was fizzling.

"The problem with forecasting El Niño is that it's like shooting craps," said William Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "The dice are loaded with this global warming thing, but we don't know exactly how they're loaded."

Some forecasters now believe the region is in for a record dry spell.

Wet? Dry? Something. It's a crap shoot. And you want me to believe you know about 80 years from now because you are using computer models?

I've listened to computer models before. But experience with computer models teaches you something: they don't work very well. And what's more interesting is that whatever catastrophe they are predicting (and they are all trying to induce a "state of fear" coupled with an assertion that the science was unquestionable so that you won't think to respond rationally), that catastrophe requires the government to solve it, and means that I will have to pay more taxes and submit to more decisions about my life being made elsewhere. And I've really had it with feeling helpless, thank you.

Let's agree on something. Farmer's Almanac uses an algorithm based on sunspots and a few other odd things, and is accurate 80% of the time. Until the computer guys achieve 80% accuracy, I'm not going to listen. I'm not really impressed with the claims of "more accuracy" that come with no number. And that is short term compared to the "climate models" that are being run here.

So, do I believe them?

No. I don't believe that they understand things as well as they pretend, I don't believe that they understand the "problem", and I definitely don't believe that any of the solutions they propose are either meaningful or directed at the problem.

Tim Blair documents the frenzy. He also notes that those who write it don't really believe it: they just want the reaction. The fear that comes from crisis, the fear that leads people to make stupid decisions: that is the goal.

UPDATE: Somebody's Noticing.

FURTHER NOTE:John C. Wright has the best comment.

Straight from the Financial Times, an English paper with pretensions of knowledge:

Europe to suffer as the world warms up
By Andrew Bounds in Brussels

Published: January 5 2007 22:22 | Last updated: January 5 2007 22:22

Chilly northern Europe could reap big benefits from global warming, while the Mediterranean faces crippling shortages of both water and tourists[bold mine - NB] by the middle of the century, according to the first comprehensive study of its effects on the continent.

Evidently, the notion of "natural resources" which are subject to "shortages" has definitional problems I never thought of. Silly me!

Especially when peer-reviewed scientific journals contain carefully contstructed articles which not only state that global warming is a myth, but show that the Kyoto industry harms people. And, as it turns out, careful readers are impressed with it, too. Those of us who have actually paid attention to climate scientists rather than environmentalists, have learned many interesting things about our natural, and political, environments, and the tensions between them.

Not, of course, that the ignorant savages will be, or the panicky scientists who spout absurd and wildly weird verbal pictures of the situation, and hope to draw conclusions from them (and persuade people to give them more money) will be impressed. Some of them apparently can't think clearly enough to be worth reading: I'm worried about hostile environment suits from their collegues.

But, as we are remoinded, most of the panicky predictions are in fact coming from people who stand to make a lot of money from them. Four billion dollars means that someone is doing well: and all they produce is paper and laws that cost the rest of us money.

Tip of the hat to Tim Blair.

UPDATE: The Antarctic's Ross Ice Shelf is Melting!!! Oh, No! PANIC!! (what, again?! Wake me when you know something.)

You know, I've heard a lot about the Stern Report: but somehow I don't see links to it anywhere.

Given the poor quality of most statistical studies of climate change, I'm not surprised by the conclusion: anyone needing a rationale for more taxes is cheering right now. Sadly, Mr. Stern hasn't properly researched the economic effect of higher taxes, but then, that might be controversial. Global Warming is safer. Besides, you can ignore prior research if it contradicts your own. I was more impressed by the prior report at least partly because it was available to review.


But now I know how to respond to the cries of "oh No!" Calmly. Changes of two to three degrees are rather mild: it changes more between my house and outdoors.

UPDATE: Thanks to alert reader CCORD (check out the comments for a link to his website), here is the link to the Stern Report. Further updates as I digest this monster.

OTHER UPDATES: Arnold Kling is first on the scene, with Tim Worstall gamely tryingto catch up with more details , and the ever popular Bjorn Lomborg and the Wall Street Journal, one who has the statistical background, and the other with an economic background. Finally, a really thoughtful discussion of the area, for those interested.

I think, with that, I will close the issue: Stern Report: DOA.

Last Hurrah: Marginal Revolution has a few points, too. And he is kinder to the report.

Read the headline again. Surely, you say, the EPA is on the side of improving the environment? Wouldn't that make boating better?

Well, as it turns out, as it usually turns out with the government, they like to meddle. They don't always know what they're doing, but they like to try things. In this case, what they are doing is destroying fisheries and rivers for boating.

[T]here are loads of tax-funded culprits tied to the four species of Asian carp - bighead, silver, black and grass - that have now invaded U.S. waters. By and large, the people who unleashed these fish on our environment were well-intentioned government and university biologists who thought they could find a job for the giant foreign fish that are so devastatingly good at stripping nutrients from the waters.

Their goal was to replace chemicals with carp. It was to employ the fish for weed control, or to give them a job cleaning up sewage lagoons and chronically fouled waters on fish farms. They also hoped to cultivate a fresh food source for an increasingly crowded planet.

They had no concept at the time, but they were tinkering with a type of biological fire that escaped their laboratories and is now raging uncontrolled across the continent.


Read the article for consequences: endangered people, endangered wildlife. I'm sure Canada won't be happy about the loss of the Great Lakes, either: shall we wait ten years to tell them?

Now recite the famous statement that strikes fear into the heart of the taxpayer: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Not as irrational as some other fears, is it?

Happening now: Oh, No! Someone is going to ruin my view!

Unlike many coastal communities, we in Malibu, are very fortunate…look behind you…. what do you see? It’s magnificent in its simplicity; an unobstructed and unaltered view of a vast expanse of sea unmarred by oil rigs, nuclear power plants, or oil derricks. We are extraordinarily blessed.
But I am hear to tell you another “inconvenient truth,” that if we do not come together as one and join our fellow neighbors in Oxnard and beyond, what you see now will be forever altered.

That, and I'm not kidding, THAT is what these people think is "environmentalism". It has supporters, of course: others who are worried that this is a horrible thing for that delicate creature the "environment". It has in common the thought that what humans do is unnatural (meaning that elementary biology, in which human beings are described as animals, too, has passed these people by -- in other words, they forget that humans are PART of nature.) There are also the hysterical cries of those "protecting the children".

LNG is natural gas with the impurities removed: it is a very clean burning fuel that can be used to do a lot of what we now use COAL and OIL for -- two fairly dirty fuels. Cast a glance at the sources of fuel for such things as electricity, which powers all our "clean" industries (like moviemaking, Mr. Brosnan!) -- and note that 48% of the electricity is generated from COAL. Don't you think it would be a good idea to make it easy to change that? Changing over to natural gas would be a significant improvement in the human environment (see the fact sheet below for the truth about who is detrimentally affected by our overwhelmingly diesel technology). One of the odd figures they produce has to do with the California demand for natural gas: not noting that it is ecologically important to increase that demand at the expense of the other, dirtier fuels. So they don't talk about that. Instead they mumble about global warming (not noting, I suppose, that the use of cleaner burning fuels would have an effect on those sloppily designed models, too).

What is being objected to is an LNG terminal in the ocean. Really. Check out the notes on the website, and the slightly hysterical comments of those supporting them. My favorite? The complaint that the terminal will raise the temperature of local water. I've seen what happens when that occurs: you get a lot more wildlife furiously competing to be in the warmer zones. Shrimp grow bigger. What a tragedy. There are also a lot of other worries out there, stated in the most dramatic possible way, including the socioeconomic impact of people brought in to work on the construction of the terminal. No consideration is given to the fact that these people will also be spending money in the local economy of Oxnard, which could use the boost.

Then read the facts about LNG. Marvel at the contrast -- and this from an easily manipulated encyclopedia. Also check out the facts on pollution reduction in natural gas vehicles. Now realize that the campaign is not about science, not about improving the environment, not about protecting the children: it's about looking good. It's about feeling that you are doing something by preventing things from being done.

UPDATE: Added quotes.