[Industrialblog,
February 7, 2007]
More on global warming
While I don't agree with every word of this article (particularly the part about unanimity=wrong), I think David Warren raises an alternative viewpoint.
The two most relevant points:
* solar flares may better predict global warming (reasonable), and
* if there is a problem, capital markets are the best solution. (In other words, the best way out is through.)
That said, we all have problems believing things when "the wrong people" believe it. People often choose sides in an argument merely because someone they often disagree with has taken one position. The question of global warming needs to be depoliticized.
This could be part of a natural cycle. It could be the result of man. If the former, enjoy it. If the latter, we've got a big, big problem and I can't imagine any other solution but technology (most likely, geothermal/electric).
Or it could be Gaia considers the human race out of balance and is trying to kill us off.
Just saying ...
UPDATE: Alternative theory here.
UPDATE II: Maybe the global warming alarmists can try this method. LOL.
The two most relevant points:
* solar flares may better predict global warming (reasonable), and
* if there is a problem, capital markets are the best solution. (In other words, the best way out is through.)
That said, we all have problems believing things when "the wrong people" believe it. People often choose sides in an argument merely because someone they often disagree with has taken one position. The question of global warming needs to be depoliticized.
This could be part of a natural cycle. It could be the result of man. If the former, enjoy it. If the latter, we've got a big, big problem and I can't imagine any other solution but technology (most likely, geothermal/electric).
Or it could be Gaia considers the human race out of balance and is trying to kill us off.
Just saying ...
UPDATE: Alternative theory here.
UPDATE II: Maybe the global warming alarmists can try this method. LOL.
But this is incredibly freaking simple. There are no repeatable, controlled experiments which prove anthropogenic global warming, and there have been no novel predictions made by the anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts which have been proved true.
That is, there's no science here. We may at some point get some, of course, but we don't have any yet. All we have so far are consensus wishes. And as we all know, if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.
I'm not sure what the scientific credentials of David Warren are - or, to put it with less of an "appeal to authority" argument, I'm not entirely sure why I should place much value on his opinion. Nothing in his incredibly tedious 100-point "About Me" seems to indicate he's doing much more than talking out his ass. As are a lot of folks who are dismissing this scientific report with a wave of their arm and a shouted "Bah!"
I notice he uses the "Book of Job" formulation you mentioned in your previous post:
Which is OK to use if you're God. Otherwise, it's a sign you're being an arrogant ass, probably trying to cover up the fact that you can't explain somehting.
But maybe I'm wrong there. In that case, allow me to say: David Wallace is wrong about a great many things in his opinion piece dressed up as a scientific critique. Why? Tell me, do you have a degree in Physics, and have you studied principles of Non-Linear Dynamics, known to the common layfolk as "Chaos Physics"?
No?
Then how can you expect to understand my answer?
I can't imagine what a repeatable, controlled experiment designed to test anthropogenic global warming would even look like; I haven't got a clue how you run parallel earths.
But the mere fact that knowledge is inaccessible doesn't mean that wild-ass guesses get promoted to knowledge; it just means that we have to live with ignorance.
But these aren't wild-ass guesses.
"The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report."
So what are the credentials that qualify you, or anyone else, to dismiss this report?
I did a series of articles on global warming back in the late 80s, and the consensus among leading experts was something needed to be done right away to head off disaster. (There wasn't.) There's a 50-year lag because of how the oceans store heat, so even if we started now, we're trying to save the world in 2057. Even if we started in 1989, we'd be saving the world for 2039. And the solutions experts said were required were extreme -- tax fossil fuels out of existence, for starters. Not only that, even if the U.S. shut down its economy, India and China and others wouldn't.
What does bug me a bit is the politicization of this issue. Once the weather is politicized, I mean shit ... what's safe left to talk about?
Even if you set aside global warming, being a leader at conserving a finite resource (such as oil/coal), developing renewable energy, and reducing C02 emissions is a good thing. It helps our security by reducing dependency of oil from the Middle East.
Why you guys say it is "Morning in America" but think we can't lead the world towards energy independence doesn't make sense to me.
I for one would like to capitalize and make a lot of money. If our nation figures out how to make solar, fission, fusion, geothermal energies work and we save all of our oil for fertilizer and other needs - so much the better.
Politicizing a scientific debate to protect oil producers seems like the real issue here. Is that safe to talk about?
Harry: I wasn't clear. I think the human race doesn't tend to think 50 years out, or at least our Anglo-Saxon culture.
Bureaucrats from 113 governments