Saturday, May 04, 2013

Severe Moderate Delusions: Don't Worry Be Happy Edition

Global warming is not about science, but about politics - that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere ~ Libertarian Charles Kadlec explains the global climate change conspiracy theory in a 7/25/2011 Forbes Op/Ed.

Conservatives like to tell us that no matter what humanity does, the earth will persist. We can continue to pollute our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels indefinitely without restraint, because the earth will adapt. Global warming denier Willis Hart echoes this sentiment in a 5/2/2013 post titled "Adaptive Seasoning"...

Willis Hart: The earth is essentially a living organism, and living organisms mostly adapt. Yes, a fair amount of carbon dioxide has entered the atmosphere... but there has not, NOT, been a runaway greenhouse effect. There hasn't... because the planet has a way of healing/cooling itself via an increase in cloud cover... a derivation of the increases in water vapor... (5/2/2014 AT 9:00pm).

Willis Hart refers to himself as a Moderate because he supports marriage equality and raising taxes back to the Clinton-era rates (but only because the national debt is so high, otherwise he'd be opposed. The wealthy already shoulder an unfair/high percentage of the tax load, and he has written MANY posts expressing his displeasure about this fact). But the Hartster's opinions on other matters more often than not are decidedly conservative in nature.

As I've referred on this blog before, as of late Mr. Hart's posts have largely been of the global-climate-change-denying variety. I've responded to a few of them (with posts on this blog), but he authors so damn many that refuting them all is not something I really care to spend as much time as it would take doing. Unlike him, I like to blog about other subjects. I've decided to respond to this one, however. Because, this one, I believe, does a good job of illustrating why I believe Willis is a Conservative at his core (as are Libertarians).

Conservatives (or Libertarians) believe quite strongly in the "survival of the fittest" Darwinian notion that the poor have only themselves to blame for their lot in life (with few exceptions), and that the rich got rich because they work hard and are generally better people than the rest of us. This explains why Mr. Hart takes exception to suggestions that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" when it comes to taxes (they earned it, they deserve it, and they should keep it). It also explains his fervent denialism when it comes to global warming.

The wealthy making money hand over fist while destroying the planet could be considered morally objectionable - if what they were doing was actually destroying the planet. But deny this fact and the moral issue is eliminated. While it is true that humans can't destroy the planet - because, as Mr. Hart points out, the earth is very much like a living organism. It can and will adapt. That isn't at issue. What is at issue is if the earth "adapting" will result in a planet that is less hospitable for humanity.

Mr. Hart contends (in his post) that the earth will adapt in a way that makes it possible for humanity to continue on as normal; that we can continue to spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we please (Yes, please build the Keystone XL pipeline so the carbon dioxide from Canada's extremely dirty tar sands oil can be spewed into our atmosphere).

Why, isn't that considerate of earth, to take humanity into account whilst adapting? I don't know about you, but I doubt the earth cares whether the human species continues on or becomes extinct. That it would is a notion is utterly laughable.

Mr. Hart theorizes that more water vapor in the air (due to seawater evaporating as the planet warms) leads to more clouds which results in more of the sun's rays being reflected back into space. The earth is taking care of this global warming problem for us, in other words (how considerate of earth!). Now you may say, "this theory sounds good, but is it true"?

Unfortunately it is false according to a 2010 study published in the journal Science which reveals that water vapor in the atmosphere actually contributed to global warming. Although a decrease in this water vapor since 2000 explains a slowdown in the warming.

Research... suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapor in the high atmosphere... [but] satellite measurements... show that water vapor levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (Water vapor caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals by David Adam. The Guardian 1/28/2010).

That temperatures are flattening out over the last decade has been a staple of Mr. Hart's argument against climate change. Scientists say they aren't sure why water vapor levels are decreasing, but the phenomena certainly does not disprove climate change. This explains why we have not, not, not, NOT seen a runaway greenhouse effect... yet. As for more water vapor causing increased cloud cover (and counteracting global warming), another study published by Science disputes that as well...

A... study published in the July 24 issue of Science [says] The data showed that as the Pacific Ocean has warmed over the past several decades... low-level cloud cover has lessened. That might be due to the fact that as the earth's surface warms, the atmosphere becomes more unstable and draws up water vapor from low altitudes to form deep clouds high in the sky [and] those types of high-altitude clouds don't have the same cooling effect. ...Low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms... "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate", says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study. (In a Warming World, Cloudy Days Are a Boon by Bryan Walsh. Time Magazine 7/24/2009).

So there you have it folks, another "the climate change scientists are hoodwinking us" post by fanatical denialist Willis Hart rebutted. And now we know why he does it too. He wants us to not worry and be happy as the wealthy elites rake in the moola selling dirty fossil fuels. Charles Kadlec is correct in that one side of this debate takes the stance they do in order to expand the power of the elites, but it is the side preaching denialism, not the other way around!

This also explains why Mr. Hart rails against green energy technology. The wealthy elites will make money in that field as well, but why cut off their windfall from fossil fuels prematurely? No need to even consider it if earth has our back and will take care of the warming problem for us. Perhaps we should send a gift basket to express our gratitude? What do you think me-buck?

Image Description: Diagram showing 4 of the 5 principal layers of earth's atmosphere (the 5th layer, which is not shown, is the exosphere).

SWTD #143, wDel #20.


  1. Investigative journalist Russ Baker asks "What is more likely? A Conspiracy of millions, or oil companies doing what they do?" in an article posted to his website WhoWhatWhy...

    Which is more likely?

    Regional environmental groups and community activists...
    ...are spending their limited operating budgets... a massive conspiracy with 90 percent of the global scientific community... create a hoax and ruin the economy.


    oil companies...
    ...are spending their obscene profits... bribe anyone that they can... protect their profits and limit any future liability their pollution might cause?

    What do you think me-buck?

  2. In regards to the quote by Libertarian Charles Kadlec I opened my post with...

    Global warming is not about science, but about politics - that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.

    What a bunch of bullshit. It's just the "elites" behind green energy that are involved in this conspiracy to "use the coercive instruments of government"? Right. Big Oil is lobbying hard to keep their tax breaks and the Republicans are FULLY on their side. Big Oil is also involved in green energy, because they know that eventually there will be money to be made in this arena. But for now they use it primarily as a PR tool, spending more money on commercials about what they are doing in the green energy field than on the actual research!

    Yea, there is a lot of money to be made (potentially) if cap-and-trade legislation passes that allows the buying and selling carbon credits. The last attempt to pass cap-and-trade included language that GAVE AWAY a butt-load of these credits, and Will Hart RIGHTLY called out the authors of this legislation for engaging in corporate welfare -- but that would have benefited Goldman Sachs, not the frigging scientists!

    The scientists who say "global warming is a fraud" are mostly funded by Big Oil! I have never seen a single story that reports that scientists who say Global warming is real are funded by Big Green or anyone who would stand to benefit from the trading of carbon credits.

    What about you dear reader? Have you ever read such a story, me-buck?

  3. FYI #1: Will Hart uses the term "me-buck" a lot. He is the only person I have ever seen or heard use this term. I've been using it to make fun of him. He also uses the word "folks" a lot when addressing his readers (a word bush used a lot too...)

    FYI #2: It appears as though replying to my own posts is the only way I'm going to get any comments. I seem to have lost my 2 readers. Should I give up?

  4. WOW, three comments already? No, wait, they are all from you. Yea, I think you should give up. Nobody cares about your obsession with Will Hart. Should he be concerned about you stalking him? I would be if I were him. But he never views your blog and is completely unaware that you're "debunking" his posts on global warming alarmists like YOU.

  5. I don't see how anyone can doubt that the earth is getting warmer. And there can be no doubt that man's activities are influencing the warming. The only question is the amount of influence that man is having.

  6. Will Hart acknowledges that too Jerry. But he says the influence human activity is having is low and that we shouldn't do anything because it would cost too much (and ruin our economy) and the results would be negligible.

    The main point I was making was that Will Hart's belief that the earth is going to solve this problem for us is silly. Do you have any thoughts on that?

  7. Will's comment reminds me of another conservative on rape. A woman's body has ways of stopping pregnancy after a rape. Both statements rely heavily on God to override nature. God won't stop a raped woman from getting pregnant, or mother nature from destroying life on Earth. Even if these troglodytes believe in God, they should know by now that God is not going to intervene. I cannot imagine someone who does not believe all the garbage humans put on the Earth has no effect on the environment, but then I cannot imagine people actually believe AIDS is a curse from God to gays for their sinful behavior. Takes all kinds, and Will is a special kind of ignorant.

  8. The earth will survive. It will change. Warming is part of that change. The earth will not solve man's problems. Man will have to adapt to earth's changes or go the way of the dinosaurs. Reducing man's footprint on the earth will reducing the amount of adaption that man will have to go through. Will it have an economic impact? Yes. Man's challenge is to make it a positive impact.

  9. I'm pretty sure Will Hart is an atheist, or an agnostic, which is why I did not mention God in my post. I most certainly would have if he did, because you are right, his blog post is reminiscent of what that Republican said about rape, as well as that Republican who said we couldn't destroy the earth because God would protect us.

    From The Telegraph...

    John Shimkus, an evangelical Christian representing Illinois, quoted the Bible in a congressional hearing last year on a proposed "cap and trade" legislation designed to limit carbon emissions.

    Reading from God's post-Flood promise to Noah in Genesis 8:21, he said: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done".

    Mr Shimkus added: "I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation.

    "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth... I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect".

    Excerpt from "Congressman says God will save us from climate change" by Alex Spillius, 11/10/2010.

  10. To Anonymous: If you don't mind me asking, why do you post anonymously? Do I know who you are? I'm curious.

    To Jerry: Agree with your comment. I doubt we will do anything before serious consequences are inevitable though. Will is one of those who believes the Keystone XL pipeline should be built. I don't know how Obama can approve it after the shout out he gave to climate change in his inaugural, but I'm still worried that he will.

    1. Don't have a blog, but I can go by a name (not attached to an address) if you like.
      I did have a very popular blog, once given a shout out from Time Magazine; but the attacks were relentless including viruses and I was once called a traitor for being against the Iraq invasion. The hate was surprising.
      Even with all that, I gave up the blog because I could not find the courteous, intelligent debate of issues I was looking for.
      I don't believe in "our way or the highway." When I criticized Bush, I was attacked. When I criticized Obama, I was attacked. When I criticized liberals for calling Bush Hitler, I was attacked. When I criticized conservatives for calling Obama Hitler, I was attacked. Just a losing, battle full of mean spirited liars. It's hard to debate issues with those attitudes, which seem to prevail on both sides. I lost interest.
      Yes, you commented on my blog back then with the most consistent and well thought out comments.
      It's to easy to make people like Dmarks, Will, and even worse wackos look ridiculous. Harder will be to find solutions to our problems given the current attitudes.
      It's hard to discuss the problems of government with those who think government should just be drowned in a bath tub. What would they prefer anarchy? Apparently, yes.
      I was never an Obamamaniac, and I know there is no such thing as a political messiah. I'm not happy with Obama at all, but would never vote for a Romney, or a party whose goal is to destroy our government.

  11. Two words. Oil. Money. Democrats love it as much as republicans.

  12. Got it, X-Anon. Thanks for answering my question.

    Yes, Jerry, the Dems like oil money too. I guess that means we're screwed for sure.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.