Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Leftist scientists endorse Green New Deal

From SciAm blogs:
Scientists Must Speak Up for the Green New Deal

The resolution’s focus on climate and social justice highlights the central challenges — and opportunities — of our time ...

Support and promote movements led by marginalized groups. We have an obligation to use our positions of privilege and resources to create space for underrepresented and marginalized groups in the pursuit of climate change solutions. Scientists and the scientific community must engage, through partnership and participation, to provide evidence and analysis in order to inform community-based decisions. We need to embrace a departure from the status quo of patriarchal leadership, and to embrace the new leadership’s vision for climate policy and solutions that includes all people of the United States.

This new style of leadership emphasizes collaboration and community-based solutions, reflected in the language of the resolution: “a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses.”
It is amazing that scientists are falling for this garbage.

The Congressional resolution starts with a supposedly scientific declaration that "human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century".

Not really. The IPCC report said that it is extremely likely that most of the observed warming since 1950 can be attributed to human influence, mainly CO2 emissions.

But the climate has been changing for millions of years, and I am not sure it makes sense to talk about how much of it is caused by human activity.

Many of the changes are beneficial, but the resolution and the scientists do not mention those. This is a little like complaining about down days on Wall Street, without mentioning the up days, and wanting to stop the changes.


  1. Fine.
    Let the scientists who support the new green deal be told that they no longer are allowed to use electricity, fossil fuels, plastic, air travel, eat any kind of meat, and are forbidden to have children,
    or be allowed to use resources in any way that have a negative impact on the environment. In addition, they should all be forced to explain how they will fund the very conservative estimate of 93 trillion dollars to pay for said 'new deal'.

    Anyone who signs off on this colossal piece of nonsense should be forced to take a basic accounting course in cost/risk management.

    Let us pretend for a moment that AOC actually knows what she is talking about because GOD told her the earth is coming to an end in 12 years (she has yet to reveal her sources). If what she says is true, why does she enjoy wearing expensive designer outfits (when she calls herself a woman of the people), enjoy hamburger apparently (she os obsessed with cow farts...literally), and live in a high end neighborhood for wealthy yuppies in DC (she is living quite lavishly)? She certainly isn't walking the walk her big mouth keeps talking about. If her own ideas are so insignificant to even herself, why should I listen to her? Because she is a fresh faced bartender that would have lost her job if she was as irresponsible with the till as she is presently trying to be with the entire economy?

  2. Simple science experiment for anyone who believes C02 drives the climate. Talk to a geologist. Find out how many times in the past C02 was considerably higher than now. If he/she doesn't know of any, they aren't a very good geologist.

    In any of those numerous past epochs when C02 was above 500ppm, did any run away greenhouse effect take place? No? Oh snap.

    If such a run away greenhouse effect didn't take place in the past when CO2 was at a considerably higher parts per million, why has CO2 suddenly developed the ability to do so now? what exact forcing is CO2 exerting for this to be possible? If the answer involves 'because a global climate model (GCM) says so', I'm not buying it, running a computer model is not a science experiment and the output is not experimental evidence.