Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Illegal immigrant left for days in Arkansas jail without food or water | Main | The Nicholls Manifesto »

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Narveson: Cooling it on Warming

All the hot air surrounding global warming needs a little cooling down. There is no solid evidence that global warming is anything other than a minor irritant. In fact, the real, bona fide scientific evidence suggests that global warming will heat the Earth a staggering 0.1 degree Celsius. That's enough to, uhm, do nothing about.

Which is exactly what politicians should be doing about global warming--according to Jan Narveson in his latest column titled "Cooling it on warming"--nothing.

An excerpt:

"A public policy that imposes draconian restrictions on all of our lives in order to bring about a result like that is, to put it bluntly, completely irresponsible. But essentially all the nations in the world are lining up in support of Kyoto. Even the Americans, who held out for quite awhile, are now agreeing that we must “do something.” Indeed, it is very difficult to find, anywhere in our history a comparable level of irresponsibility in reaction to a supposedly scientific finding.

Rationally speaking, and on the contrary, what we "must" do is nothing. We should certainly sign off from any Kyoto- or Bali-type measures. We should pipe down and return the whole subject to the scientists. Many years down the road maybe something will have happened with enough shape to justify some sort of policy--though I doubt it. Weather and climate are just too complicated, and contributions to it by forces that are far, far beyond human control are just too obvious." Read More...

Posted by westernstandard on March 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Narveson: Cooling it on Warming:


Narveson hits the nail on the head. As usual our politicians need a soap box to stand on and "man made" global is one of the latest "fads". Its merely an excuse to further drain people of their assets and look good doing it. Climate change is a natural cyclical phenomenon and all the money in the world won't change that. This doesn't mean that I condone environmentally irresponsible behaviour. But paying more taxes is simply paying more taxes...it does nothing for the planet. However, it does enrich the central banksters while releiving you of the burden of your retirement funds.
And it makes me wonder just who is funding the Reverend Al Gore and Saint Suzuki.

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-12 7:00:02 AM

Correction, Should say:

As usual our politicians need a soap box to stand on and "man made" global WARMING is one of the latest "fads".

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-12 7:01:32 AM

Actually, one doesn't have to go back that far to think of similar examples. Look at eugenics (which begat Auchwitz), the theories of Maynard Keynes (which begat the New Deal and 1960s-era socialism), and the health risks associated with smoking (used to justify perhaps one of the greatest large-scale repressions in modern history).

It all happens for one very simple reason: There will always be those who are content to let others do their thinking for them.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-12 7:14:31 AM

This is just the same old same old Denialist baloney. Can't you guys come up with a single new fake fact? Trying to convince people that Mr. Monckton (for example) is a scientist, let alone a climatologist, is doomed to failure.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-03-12 7:15:16 AM

Is Al Gore a scientist?

Is David Suzuki a climatologist?

I rest my case.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-12 7:33:14 AM

BigCityLib, either you're a troll or else a walking ad-hominem cliché. If it's fake facts you're after, how about the now-discredited "hockey stick" graph, or the infamous imagery put out by the Sierra Club that showed Victoria under water by 2100? Or the fact that the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season figured so prominently in "An Inconvenient Truth"'s plotline, whereas in 2006 not a SINGLE hurricane made U.S. landfall? Meanwhile, the value of a "green" investment scheme set up by Al Gore has just topped five billion dollars.

Face it, BigCityLib. These doomsday prophets are feeding you a religion and then passing around the collection plate. And you city slickers are neurotic and ignorant enough to cough up in spades. Remember that the next time you are tempted to sneer at Christians.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-12 7:33:28 AM


"This is just the same old same old Denialist baloney. Can't you guys come up with a single new fake fact? Trying to convince people that Mr. Monckton (for example) is a scientist, let alone a climatologist, is doomed to failure."

I've got an idea. Why doesn't your side provide me with a list of predictions for various moments in the future for various variables such as temperature, global rainfall, etc.

I will then chart those predictions and verify whether they have in fact occurred.

If they occur, I will reconsider my opinion. If not, then your side needs to get a new hypothesis.

It's called science. Try it sometime.

As of this moment, your sides' track record is abysmal and it keeps reducing its predictions. Not a good sign of confidence in the predictive power of their modesl if you ask me.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-12 7:36:14 AM

Another point to make: Recently a group of about 150 scientists stepped forward to reassert their commitment to the theory of global warming and exhort the sinful masses to change their ways. Scientists are usually a competitive and tend to work in small groups. Any time they vote "en bloc," it's time to be suspicious.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-12 7:58:02 AM

The Left no longer uses the term 'global warming' because even they now cannot deny that it just ain't happening. They now call their religion, climate change.

I am not sure what that actually means since the climate changes every season and also has longer term trends and trends within trends. It's called nature.

We are being robbed blind to appease nature. Sort of like sacrificing a goat or a lamb to make it rain or to make the crops grow.

Chant with me ....

We shall bring all economies to their knees in praise of Gaia.

We shall destroy all wealth and freedom to honor of our great collective in worship of Gaia.

We shall put an end to science for the science has been settled.

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-12 10:26:12 AM

Chants are usually shorter, John, that was more like a jingle.
Maybe we can get a ruling from the Catholics out there.

Here is my idead of a chant:

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,

Reduce your footprint,
of C, (clap, clap,) O 2!!!


Hey! Hey!
Ho! Ho!

Big Oil's,
Got to GO!

Your chant was way too wordy and deep.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-12 10:42:17 AM

Could have been one of those long monotone Nepalese monk chants. Remember that scene in 1986's The Golden Child with the spinny wheel?

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-12 10:45:12 AM


Let's make it a Gregorian chant. You know where the voices do a crescendo then diminuendo in the echoed chamber of a an empty church.


Posted by: John West | 2008-03-12 11:10:45 AM

I'm not sure how serious you were about the Pagan sacrifice JW, but I think you're onto something. Mankind has shown a pattern of this behaviour in many cultures.

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-12 11:24:34 AM

>"We are being robbed blind to appease nature. Sort of like sacrificing a goat or a lamb to make it rain or to make the crops grow."
John West | 12-Mar-08 10:26:12 AM

I think John meant that since we don't have goats, lambs, or Pagans to sacrifice we'll just have to use the universal medium of exchange, filthy lucre.

Carbon tax anyone?
Booga Booga, Ungowah!

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-12 11:30:57 AM

Bingo Speller

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-12 11:38:15 AM

Catastrophic AGW has become the latest hysteria that the political class, re-branded Marxists, Luddites and elitists are using to consummate the re-marriage of Church and State. BigCityLib and his ilk are the new priests of the latest Spanish Inquisition. Words like "Denier" fit perfectly with Inquisitional inquiry. Monty Python skits (Church Police) were perfect foreshadowing.

Fortunately, the Internet has forced the msm to report more on those scientists who continue questioning all hypotheses including the gross hubris of "settled science" of AGW.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-03-12 11:38:35 AM

Those behind this hoax will never willingly give it up no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. They have too much at stake and to gain for that.

It boils down to big money grab and huge power grab by subduing the masses. The end goal remains to implement a one world "security" state with the chosen few at the top and running the show.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-03-12 1:15:20 PM

Follow the money. With any movement, ALWAYS follow the money.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-12 8:22:52 PM

That was just proven yet again in the past few days. That is how they caught Spritzer and the hooker. There were following his money. They didn't know what he was he was doing with it.

They even thought he might be paying a blackmailer or an extortionist. It turns our he was paying a 'contortionist'.

At least that it is the impression I got when the the Madame involved told the Hooker that Spritzer may want her to do things that were dangerous.

The hooker replied that she knew how to handle it.

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-12 8:35:07 PM

For those who live in the Northern Hemisphere and it's winter - temperatures are in centigrade and the rest of the summer was not much better.

January 2008 hottest on record
Friday, 1 February, 2008

2008 has delivered Australia the hottest January on record (AAP)

Scorching heat across Australia has seen the hottest January on record.

The finding is in line with a pattern over the past five decades in which the country's average temperature has risen under the impact of global warming.
"Nearly the whole country has been hotter than average for daytime and night-time temperatures in January," David Jones, the head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

"It's not so much a few places breaking records by large margins. It's nearly the whole country being one to two degrees warmer than average".

"Australia is warming up as part of the global warming process," Jones said. "Certainly record high temperatures are coming significantly faster than what we would have expected if it wasn't the case of global warming."

He said warming in Australia was expected to be in line with the global projections.

"It's just simply not surprising. The world is warming, Australia has warmed by about a degree (since 1950). It just means we get fewer cold days, fewer cold weeks, fewer cold months, and more and more hot ones," he said.

"But I guess what is different to the rest of the world is that Australia is already very hot, whereas many other countries around the world have the luxury of a cool climate."

The most extreme temperatures in January were in Western Australia and the Northern Territory which had their hottest January on record.

Temperatures three to four degrees above average were recorded in the Pilbara in Western Australia and in Central Australia.

In the outback town of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, the coolest day of the month was 36C (97F) degrees.

The average temperature across the country rose 1.3 degrees C last month.

The Bureau of Meteorology says Perth had an average daily maximum temperature of 32.8C this month, matching the same average in January 1992 and surpassing the monthly average of 30.3C.

The mercury soared to 41.9C on January 3.

The average daily temperature was 18.9C compared to an average of 17.6C, with daily minimums ranging from a chilly 13.1C to a warm 23.5C.

Sydney's daytime January temperature was right on average at 25.9 degrees thanks to easterly summer winds.

But night-time temperatures were almost two degrees up at 20.3 degrees.

The rest of the state was not so fortunate. Temperatures in the south and west climbed two degrees higher than average.

But eastern Queensland and north-eastern NSW bucked the national trend, with wet weather bringing temperatures one or two degrees below the average.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-03-12 11:40:07 PM

Brian, Australia's drought has been increasing steadily for decades, as has the Sahara's. But rainfall in other areas has actually increased. All this confirms is that climate changes--it always has and always will. It doesn't mean the whole planet is heating up. I live by the ocean--I think I'd notice if it started to rise.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 12:31:34 AM

Shame, I live near the sea too. Last June we had a cyclonic storm event (this is not a cyclonic area) that did $1.2 billion dollars damage. In our region we have had double the average rainfall this summer because the east coast of Australia is under the influence of a La Nino event (which is natural). No one is saying there are not natural cycles and variability - that would be idiotic because they are plainly seen in the geological record.

Much of Australia in the last 6 month has been released from the grip of a 1000 year drought but when El Nina returns so does the droughts. It’s just that something just as big as natural global climate events like these are at work changing the climate and we ignore this at our peril.

There are up to 60 active volcanoes around the world releasing CO2 but human activity is releasing the CO2 equivalent of about 8000 volcanic eruptions.

The sea port where I live is the largest coal export port in the world and that capacity is currently being doubled so we can supply China and India’s insatiable demand.

I, and a lot of other people, are very worried about fossil fuel CO2 emissions and what it’s doing to the planet’s biosphere and the oceans. Deforestation is a massive CO2 problem too.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-03-13 2:05:55 AM

I apologise for the typo - I meant Shane.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-03-13 2:10:33 AM


"I, and a lot of other people, are very worried about fossil fuel CO2 emissions and what it’s doing to the planet’s biosphere and the oceans. "

It's a mature attitude the shows concern for our planet and rationally acts as a steward harvesting its resources for our survival.

However, I said "rationally". Irrational fears over a process such as climate change thinking we are anything more than the equivalent to a butterfly flapping its wings will only make you panic. Relax. There are so many more variables that we do not understand.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-13 6:41:51 AM

So you had an unusual storm, Brian. So did we. We had an unprecedented windstorm (at least, unprecedented since 1962) that flattened thousands of trees in Stanley Park. Storms happen. It is not proof of catastrophic change. Al Gore howled “climate change” and figured the 2005 hurricane season prominently in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” But in 2006 not a single hurricane made U.S. landfall.

We also appear to have wildly differing figures concerning the amount of CO2 released by volcanic eruptions. As I understand it, one decent eruption releases more CO2 into the air then a decade of human emissions. What time period of human emissions does that “8000 volcanic eruptions” figure cover? Even today, anthropogenic CO2 is only about 10 percent of the total. The rest comes from natural sources.

As for what China and India are doing, there’s no point in fretting about it, because they are exempt from most emissions treaties, both current and proposed. The idea seems to be that they deserve their shot at trashing the environment simply because we once had ours. That sounds disturbingly like the notion that one good rape, robbery, or murder deserves another, but never mind. Today’s coal technologies are much cleaner than the smoke-belching antiques that represent coal power to most people, and it’s only going to get cleaner, because even Chinese people like to be able to breathe.

Hell, there’s even talk of bringing back the steam engine, because it can be made to burn much cleaner than any internal-combustion engine (no antiknock additives, no engine lubricants, no anti-sludge compounds, et cetera). Modern steam is much more efficient than the 70,000-part Rube-Goldberg contraptions of yesteryear. And steam engines can run on anything that burns, be it coal or biomass or old gym shoes.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 7:13:48 AM

"But I guess what is different to the rest of the world is that Australia is already very hot, whereas many other countries around the world have the luxury of a cool climate."

Posted by: Brian | 12-Mar-08 11:40:07 PM

Yes, we're so lucky. Let it snow, let it snow.

What about the average temp. in Australia? Most of the news this year was about how cold the winter was. Many places had snow for the first time in recorded history.

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-13 9:19:12 AM

Climate change? Is that thing still around?

We real people - the so-called "climate change deniers" - should just keep our heads and wait for this climate change nonsense blows over.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-03-13 9:38:39 AM

We can't be TOO passive, Zebulon. Otherwise we'll end up paying more tax. It's already happened in B.C., but if enough people oppose it Victoria will probably back down. They have before.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 10:15:15 AM

Good point, Shane. But I expect them to self-destruct with ideas like throwing people in jail for dissenting from 'climate change'.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-03-13 10:50:49 AM

I don't believe nature wants our money...I know governments and banks do. But nature being infinitely wiser probably wouldn't know what to do with a bunch of worthless paper anyway. (On the other hand...maybe she'll insist we pay in Euro's :))

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-13 3:46:19 PM

Shane, This is the CO2 volcanic eruption figures and the equivalent CO2 released by human activity. It comes from a "reasonable" reputable source – The U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. The relevant section from this site is below and the actual site is


Note that human activity is more than 130 times natural volcanic activity and when you multiply that by 60 you get around 8000, like the site says. I have seen other sources that say it’s 200 times more but let’s stick with the conservative US government figures.

As always, we must beg to differ on what’s causing the now observable global climatic changes - this time around.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Posted by: Brian | 2008-03-13 6:55:41 PM

Boy it's a good thing we wiped out the Buffalo. If we could break our addiction to beef, we might get this CO2 thing under control.

Of course it would be less stressful for us in the western world to simply starve about 2 or 3 billion people with higher food costs. The push toward bio-fuels is a step in the right direction. Hell, those Africans don't appreciate good Iowa corn anyway.

Those high oil prices might get the bicycles running again in China. The problem is, 200 million Chinese cyclists put out a pile of CO2.

This problem is going to take some more thought. Maybe I'll check back tomorrow and see if anyone came up with anything.

Oh ya, those statistics only apply to perpetually active volcanoes. The surprise ones like Mt. Saint Helens can instantly change those numbers for a decade or more. Tough luck eh?

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-13 10:10:21 PM


How many sunspots do human beings throw into the atmosphere?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-13 10:26:30 PM

Brian, according to the link below, the actual amount of volcanic CO2 is more like 260 billion tonnes per year, or about ten times human activity. In fact, CO2 isn't as big a deal, greenhouse-wise, as most people think it is. Both water vapour and methane (a byproduct of the beef industry; all those farting cows) contribute far more to heat retention than CO2.

Look at it this way--all that extra CO2 is going to be sucked right back up again once biofuels start taking off.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 10:40:36 PM

As always, we must beg to differ on what’s causing the now observable global climatic changes - this time around.

Shane, why I said this is because the science of climate change “always” gets drowned in a sea of deception from ideologies like libertarianism and the website you sent yet again proves this true. Such sites clog the web.

I relate very strongly to the position reach by the scientist who wrote the following and am again wasting my time. All the best to you.
I have wasted a substantial chunk of my time for the last 3 years dealing with so-called sceptics. The problem is you have a party in a debate who do not want to debate honestly, but is determined to obfuscate in order to support a pre-determined position.
I’ve virtually stopped “debating” this issue now, in favour of leaving the ongoing physical process of anthropogenic global warming to address the doubts and concerns of those who consider themselves sceptics. They can say what they want: The physical reality is immutable; the longer they hang on, the more ridiculous they become.

Posted by: Brian | 2008-03-14 12:34:20 AM

Brian, they have a saying--he who stalks a monster becomes one. You're allowing your bitterness to show, which suggests you have a substantial emotional investment in this subject. You should NEVER invest emotion in something as ephemeral and abstract as a scientific theory, because it clouds your objectivity.

You say such sites as the one I quoted clog the Web. I could say that many more such sites as the one YOU cited clog the Web. I could also say that scientists have been wrong before, that this issue has all the trappings of a witch hunt, alarmist conspiracy, and mass hysteria, that much of the data on which "global warming" was predicated has now been called into question, that the Earth has been warmer than it is today within the last 1,000 years without any ill effects other than larger harvests, and that in spite of a tsunami of hysterical hand-wringing I have yet to see the oceans rise, the Northwest Passage open, or any appreciable change in weather.

You take it personally when someone disagrees with you. You shouldn't.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-14 7:41:59 AM

Shane....well put. People like Brian just hate it when someone injects commom sense into the equation. His mind is closed and his view is no longer open to question.There may be two sides to the subject,but they are both his. He has been pissing into the wind for three years now and it is showing.Only time will prove him, and all the other followers of the Gore/Suzuki doctrine wrong. Meanwhile, the government has found a easy way to fill the coffers with new taxes on nothing.......for nothing.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-03-14 11:19:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.