Barr Waffles

Discussion
1

July 18, 2008
Is Bob Barr Flip-Flopping on Climate Change?
Posted by Anthony Gregory at July 18, 2008 03:15 PM

Personally, I think one can take the libertarian position on the issue without knowing or claiming to know much about the science involved. But it seems Barr has taken a different approach.

On the Glenn Beck show, in early June, Barr said, "Global warming is a myth. And yet it`s being used by the environmental folks, by the internationalists. A lot of the pressure is coming from the United Nations and other countries. Some of which, like China, of course, are pushing the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because they`re exempt. It`s going to saddle us. And what is McCain doing? He`s out there buying into this global warming, carbon emission cap and trade."

Now Barr says, "Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the 'We' Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent."

He gives the caveat that he is "aware that scientists differ on its causes, impact and remedies" and is "firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies."

But although he calls his solutions "market-based" and "free enterprise":

  "There obviously is a role for government," Barr said. "There's a role for private industry. There's a role for nonprofits and certainly a role for the American people, individually and collectively". . . . [Barr] said it is time to recognize thatglobal warming "is a very serious problem" and that it will get "dramatically worse" unless significant action is taken.

2

Amazing....

3

That "role for government" nonsense aside, I'm actually pleased that
he "waffled" on his previous statement that "global warming is a myth."

Ignoring the science of climate change is every bit as embarrassing as
the Creationists' claim that Adam and Eve were riding dinosaurs in the
Garden of Eden. We Libertarians cannot afford to buy into the right
wing's ignorance of science.

The evidence on the ice core samples is solid. I keep hearing the
excuse from deniers that maybe when the planet warms, CO2 increases,
which in their minds switches C02 from cause to effect (with the real
cause being solar cycles). Of course, when scientists can match the
increase in CO2 to a major volcanic eruption that we know from
geological evidence, are the global warming deniers claiming that
solar cycles increase both CO2 and cause volcanoes? Come on.

I was skeptical about climate change until I talked with George
Phillies about it. Global warming as a theory isn't yet as well
tested as evolution as a theory, but it's getting close. I'm glad our
nominee is at least getting a clue about the science. Now, all we
need to do is help him out with the policy that should derive from
that scientific evidence. And "obviously a role for government"
simply isn't the answer.

Rob

July 18, 2008
Is Bob Barr Flip-Flopping on Climate Change?
Posted by Anthony Gregory at July 18, 2008 03:15 PM

Personally, I think one can take the libertarian position on the

issue without knowing or claiming to know much about the science
involved. But it seems Barr has taken a different approach.

On the Glenn Beck show, in early June, Barr said, "Global warming is

a myth. And yet it`s being used by the environmental folks, by the
internationalists. A lot of the pressure is coming from the United
Nations and other countries. Some of which, like China, of course, are
pushing the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because they`re exempt. It`s going to
saddle us. And what is McCain doing? He`s out there buying into this
global warming, carbon emission cap and trade."

Now Barr says, "Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met

privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased
and honored that he invited me to attend the 'We' Campaign event.
Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has
studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning,
liberal oriented or independent."

He gives the caveat that he is "aware that scientists differ on its

causes, impact and remedies" and is "firmly committed to free market
solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies."

But although he calls his solutions "market-based" and "free

enterprise":

  "There obviously is a role for government," Barr said. "There's a

role for private industry. There's a role for nonprofits and certainly
a role for the American people, individually and collectively". . . .
[Barr] said it is time to recognize thatglobal warming "is a very
serious problem" and that it will get "dramatically worse" unless
significant action is taken.

4

Rob,

  Barr's previous statement definitely should have been clarified -- even anthropogenic global warming theory skeptics acknowledge that the planet has gotten a bit warmer during the past century, so calling global warming is a myth is technically inaccurate. However the information I've seen points to the conclusion that global warming being mainly caused by human activity *is* a myth. The warming also appears to have stopped over the past few years, and apparently a lack of solar activity indicates the earth may in fact be in for a cooling spell (see for instance http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/).

  Regarding the ice core sample data and historical CO2 levels, findings that the CO2 was produced by a specific volcanic eruption sound plausible to me. The theory that solar changes are the main cause of climate change on earth does not depend on a finding that more CO2 is produced when the planet gets warmer. Anthropogenic theorists face what seems to me a much more difficult question -- why the ice core samples show that increases in warming came signficantly *before*, not after, increases in CO2 levels, when according to their theory, the CO2 increases should have come first:

"...the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years. There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now. According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case."

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/co2_temperature.html

  Whatever the actual scientific truth of the matter, however, I think Barr's abrupt reversal of positions without any explanation suggests a disturbing lack of integrity.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

5

Rob, You are certainly correct that it is politically expedient to accept the global warming thesis. However , acceptning the authority of George phillies is suspect. He is a physicist and as such is ecxpert in systems that llend thenselves to precise measurement in the here and now, and an entire universe to find the perfect the theory. There is only one earth, and much is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty.

Have you read the ice core studies. You are correct , they are precise science. However the co2 levels in the micro bubbles in the ice are correlated to global temperatures, ewhich are very loosey goosey, as they are estimated from ratios of certain species to others in a very subjective manner ,as there are no NOAH measuring stations in the pliestocene.

as for volcanoes, I don't know whatt you are talking about. volcanoes are generally a combination of gasses and partivculate. Massive volcanoes generally cool the planet, because they block the sun, sometimes for years, with stratospheric micro particles. It is thought that many European cities were started by the failure to have summer isn 1750 or so, when ther no summer for two years, probably due a large well documented volcanoe in Indonesia.

It is true ,that in the precamrbrian, the planet roasted with Co2 levels in the many thousands of parts per million. The entire rise in CO2 levels in modern times is in the range of 3-900 to 400 ppm, and in fact the range i usually read is 320 to 390. over an order of magnitude lesss than the massive geolical changes, woroght by massive world wide volculnism of a young planet, the advent of life, and the drift of continents.

I urge you to read the most cited ice core level papers. they are careful to define the lack of precision in time sequence, and at all the ones that I read did not make any conclusion about cause and effect to global warming.

george Phillies has already aptly demonstrated his tenuous grasp on complex systems by getting the economic histor;y of the United States completely wrong and embACING THE MAINSTREAM IDEA THAT FORCING PRINTTED MONEY ON PEOPLE THROUGH LEGAL TENDER LAWS AND THE MAINTENANCE OF A CENTRAL BANKING MONOPOLY, THAT IS FREE TO FORCE MASSIVE COUNTERFEITING ON THE POPULLOUS IS A NECESSARY AND REASONBLE AND PREFERRED ROLE FOR GOVEERNMENT COERCIOIT IS SAD THAT THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY IS SO EASILY PLACED ON THE ALTER OF EXPEDIENCY.IN TIME ,THOSE WHO WHO EMBRACE THIS THEORY WITHOUT RESERVATION ARE LIKEL;YTO BE EMBARRASED, IF ANYONE REMEMBERS, AS WE FREEZE IN THE COLD .