As I usually do, I not only fired up the grill, but also a fire pit a few feet away. He asked about this, and I explained that I was doing all I could to forestall the coming ice age. And at that point, I had to explain to him that I consider anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense.
Well, I didn't have to. Some might consider mixing work and politics to be...unwise. But after four margaritas* and a week of being with this delightful German fellow**, it just seemed the thing to do.
Asterisks and more after the jump.
*Later in the week, you'll need Patron Silver tequila; Grand Marnier; limes; simple syrup; and sea salt. Trust me, you'll want to mix this drink. I've got this shit mastered.
And so I went into the fact that CO2 absorbs energy from only a couple of narrow bands from the electromagnetic spectrum, so it captures only a tiny fraction of that energy; that cyclical variations in solar output and sunspots would have to have several orders of magnitude more impact on global temperature than an inefficient trace greenhouse gas; and so on.
Here's the interesting part to this story: He'd never heard any of this before.
This very scientifically literate engineer had never heard of Michael Mann or his hockey stick, of the East Anglia hide-the-decline emails; he'd never considered, or heard anyone consider, why temperatures were warmer before the Industrial Revolution than they are now. He'd never heard anyone suggest that the idea of carbon dioxide concentration driving temperature is exactly the same confusion of cause-and-effect as claiming that waving trees cause the wind (since increased temperature actually causes more atmospheric carbon dioxide, as it's driven out of solution in warming oceans).
And we think the American left lives in a bubble. In Europe, the left has succeeded in completely isolating even well-educated people from reality.
**Here's a video at which my guest took umbrage. "Yes, but he's a Bavarian -- a hillbilly."
72 comments:
Great video.
Your workmate is no different than over half of the US population in his ignorance.
Our state-run media is highly effective.
State-run media? WHAT State-run media? NBC's decision to run a mini-series haigrophy of Saint Hillary just before the elections was strictly a business decision, dontcha know? Nobody here but us chickens!
I would go with Aha Toro tequila.
Aged in barrels bought from Jim Beam after they've been used for whiskey.
Best tequila ever. Nice amber color and that wide range of flavors only aging in wood can create.
On a somewhat more serious note, Pasta, I also have been amazed at the almost TOTAL ignorance about even the most BASIC facts concerning the "AGW" controversy by otherwise extremely well-educated individuals--no, strike that--there IS NO "controversy" in their minds--it's all "settled science" and that's that. Now, one might logically expect such responses from blue-collar HS drop-out LIV types, or from indoctrinated college-educated OWS pot-head ideologues, but from otherwise seemingly well-read, well-spoken and well-educated people? ABSOLUTELY frightening..
Joseph Goebbels is somewhere smiling..
ST, what happened to your trade-mark avatar "old dawg?"
ST, what happened to your trade-mark avatar "old dawg?"
Accidentally signed in under another account.
Old Dawgz often have trouble remembering stuff.
Conversely, I scan HuffPost every once in a blue moon to see what's what on the left. I'm surprised to find out they think Obama has saved the economy, and the slow growth is only due to how bad Bush effed up the economy in the first place. They seem immune to the facts that most job growth has been in part-time jobs, workforce participation is lower than its been in 20 years (hence the dropping unemployment rate as more people drop off the job-hunting and unemployment roles), sub-2% GDP growth was puny under Bush but roaring under Barry, and now they are taking credit for a reduced deficit because the world-killing sequester was implemented.
@virgil,
Absolute ignorance of the arguments for the opposition doesn't surprise me, especially from a European.
I'm retired, except from my work as a musician, so I can mouth off all I want.
Expression any kind of deviation from the party line can and will cost you your job in the field I used to work in... multimedia development in NYC.
The best way to avoid sticking your head on the chopping block is to become a fervent believer. Most people really don't give a shit, so it's easier just to go along.
The professional class in Europe is much more constrained because the centralized Euro government in Brussels is contemptuous of popular will and rules by administrative fiat.
Before I go for my morning bicycle ride, let me add that expressing any objection to, or lack of enthusiasm for, the glory of gaydom will doom you faster than any other expression of dissent from the party line.
This is why I find TOP's prattling about gay oppression so inane.
We had to kiss gay ass in the office and there was an entirely separate set of rules for gays that always gave them the advantage.
In fact, for a white guy, the only way to get out from under the Evil Eye and to gain access to favor in the quota system was to declare oneself gay.
I suspect that there are quite a few hetero guys in NYC who are faking it to get to the front of the line.
Did you clue the guy in that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around? It always amazes me how people so easily discount solar variations, yet will think that a minor thing like a small pit fire will destroy the earth.
Shouting Thomas said ...
Old Dawgz often have trouble remembering stuff.
Thanks a pant-load. I had something to say, but ... wanders off admiring the room walls and wondering why he came in to it.
I'm expected to believe certain things. So the only safe way I've discovered to safely counter that is by keeping my trap shut.
Sometimes that strategery backfires because it is interpreted, by the person talking to me, as something of a less than enthusiastic approval of their trashing of something they believe I agree with them on.
So, they up the ante. Forcing me to lower their volume by saying something like, those dam republicans... yadi yadi yada.
And so I went into the fact that CO2 absorbs energy from only a couple of narrow bands from the electromagnetic spectrum, so it captures only a tiny fraction of that energy;
I'll bet your German Kumple didn't know the first thing about Fermi resonance either, which broadens CO2's middle band at around 1300 cm-1 due to coupling between a stretching mode and the first overtone of a doubly degenerate bending mode. The consequence is intensified absorbance.
Clouds are the white elephant in the AGW debate. They are wicked good IR absorbers and reflect most visible light unless viewed from both sides which anyone can observe.
Don't be so hard on the Germans, Pasta. Fritz Varhenholt's book The Neglected Sun is coming out in September and will rock the third stone from the sun.
I say "safely" because it's just not worth it to get into it with somebody on account that the conversation could very likely be interpreted as an expression of resentment of, or hostility towards the person talking to me themselves, because of something they may have done or not done.
Conversations are tricki.
The subject is so complicated, with data and opinion out there that counters every point. There is a matching lie for every truth you can possibly deliver. I have no idea if CO2 is really a problem, and I don't think anyone else knows either. I know plenty of the data, and if you accept it, then there is some warming since the industrial revolution, but it is not unprecedented at all, and lately it's stopped. The planet has been warmer, and CO2 has been higher, and both reversed themselves without us doing anything.
Most amazing to me is the ubiquitous foundational idea that the temperature in 1800 was the perfect temperature for the Earth, and can and should be maintained at all cost. Where the hell did that come from?
AGW support.
1. We can't solve the Navier Stokes equations. Hence there's no theory.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle. Hence there's no data.
Other than no theory and no data, the science is settled.
@rhhardin/
Killjoy..
I did not read this post until this AM. Just watched the hilarious video.
Thank you, Pasta. Fantastic post. Awesome.
My German neighbor is always going on an on about the superior way of the Germans. He's a nice guy, but everyone rolls their eyes.
Were their ovens solar powered?
I don't know of any idea that is so thoroughly engrained in the culture without proof like AGW. It's included in everything. Any subject on the Weather channel, History channel, PBS, or anywhere in any university has an AGW component and it's always as accepted fact.
It may never be proven wrong unless we go into a sudden ice age, which of course will also prove it true somehow, so I think we are stuck with it, and it will waste trillions of dollars, and a lot of mental capital that could be used better. I'm currently building up my stock of firewood for the winter. I have two indoor fireplaces, and one outdoor, and I love to warm the planet. I think the ideal temperature where I live on the SoCAl coast would be about 5 degrees warmer, and I'm doing my part to get us there.
"the left has succeeded in completely isolating even well-educated people from reality."
The Euros have had 2500 years' experience.
I don't know of any idea that is so thoroughly engrained in the culture without proof like AGW. It's included in everything. Any subject on the Weather channel, History channel, PBS, or anywhere in any university has an AGW component and it's always as accepted fact.
I know another--that Apple computers are superior. They did this through clever marketing and discounting to public and private universities, beginning in the early 1980's.
I say "safely" because it's just not worth it to get into it with somebody on account that the conversation could very likely be interpreted as an expression of resentment of, or hostility towards the person talking to me themselves, because of something they may have done or not done.
The one lovely thing about having one's career get flushed down the toilet is that I don't have to give much of a fuck about that kind of crap anymore. Only on the occasions when I'm around my wife's co-workers do I have need of such filters, and then I can just pretend to be a little Asperger-y.
But on other occasions I can stop pretending and just be my normal assholish self. Us LTUEs take solace where we can find it.
@El Pollo Raylan
Apple computers are better... if the kind of work that you do actually demands the capabilities of an Apple.
For people who do heavy duty media, like me, the advantages are obvious.
If you don't do media on a big scale, you're wasting your money on a Mac.
Most amazing to me is the ubiquitous foundational idea that the temperature in 1800 was the perfect temperature for the Earth, and can and should be maintained at all cost. Where the hell did that come from?
That comes from stupid, frozen-brained Yankees who don't understand that Man isn't supposed to live in an igloo, Bagoh. Those northern types have lost all sense, what with having their brains frozen and thawed repeatedly.
ST:
"I suspect that there are quite a few hetero guys in NYC who are faking it to get to the front of the line."
Sounds perfect for in denial gays.
My German neighbor is always going on an on about the superior way of the Germans. He's a nice guy, but everyone rolls their eyes.
Just give him the old Nazi salute, and that will shut him the Hell up right quick.
I have to admit that I would love to have an apple computer, but am just too cheap. I built my first PC back in the eighties from parts and continued to build them for the next few years out of pure cheapness. Eventually I've probably bought over a hundred of them for personal and business use, but not never one Apple. I still want one, but I'm still too cheap. I imagine them to be better, but don't really know. The fact is that PCs no longer have the problems that Apple used to avoid, so I don't know if there is any advantage now for the money.
The other day I bought a new PC that fits in your hand for $300. It includes a high speed processor, built in high end video, wifi, big storage, basically everything you get in a desktop, and all solid state and fast. You just bolt it right on the back of your monitor. It's no bigger than a nice size donut. Use a wireless keyboard and mouse an you have a great system that takes no space.
AGW is suspect to me because when I follow the money I find bullshit. I'll sell me some "carbon credits" ... WTF is that? Something is bad so you trade in it? Why, yes, indeedy, that IS just like fucking for pay.
That, and with all the time I've spent in wilderness areas I'm still trying to comprehend how Pasta's fire pit is anything remotely like the massive forest fires that occur annually [naturally, BTW...I watched lightning start one in the Mill Creek area of Montana's Paradise Valley a couple years ago]...oddly enough many of them in the very places where AGW redemption is worshiped as sacrifice to GAIA.
Apple is a socialist approach to computing. One size fits all, not easily customizable, and a 'universal' design devoid of any regional or provincial influence. Apple's philosophy is that their designers and programmers know better than you, so just use their programs as intended and don't try to do anything outside the box.
PCs are much more free market and democratic. You can mix and match all sorts of hardware; they come in all shapes, sizes, and styles; and you can customize and program the hell out of them. And they are cheaper.
I have bought an Apple in the past, but I'm not an iHole.
Sounds perfect for in denial gays.
The categorization of sex into the two camps, hetero and homo, doesn't really take into account the reality of the weird carnival that is human sexuality.
Some people dabble in homosexuality occasionally. In Latin society a "top" is not considered a homo, but a "bottom" is. I have a friend who claims to be bisexual who hasn't been with a woman in decades. He grew up in San Salvador and Sao Paola. Since he's a "top," he considered himself macho and 100% hetero.
The traditional Filipino approach to gaydom is quite different than the Western approach. Despite the fact that the Philippines is a very traditional Catholic society, you will see transvestites, drag queens and macho hookers roaming the streets in Manila and Cebu.
Their clientele... married men taking a night off from being hetero.
Filipino woman can handle this in their mates in a way that Western women cannot.
The "denial" bit is mostly BS.
@Bagoh,
The biggest advantage of Macs, aside from their superiority for media production, is that they are damned near immune from virus infection.
The other day I bought a new PC that fits in your hand for $300. It includes a high speed processor, built in high end video, wifi, big storage, basically everything you get in a desktop, and all solid state and fast. You just bolt it right on the back of your monitor. It's no bigger than a nice size donut. Use a wireless keyboard and mouse an you have a great system that takes no space.
Bagoh, what make and model did you get, if you don't mind saying.
BagoH20 said ... [re: small PC]
... big storage, ... and all solid state ...
I presume you mean a solid state "hard disk drive" like device. How "big" is big? What brand and model did you buy?
Reason for asking: I am planning to give a basic PC to a friend who needs one and this sounds like one step better than the "all-in-one" PC in a monitor versions. I'd want a Windows 7 OS.
The best description of male sexuality that I ever have encountered, courtesy of a long ago girlfriend is:
Men would fuck mud, if they could!
It's true. Seems odd, but I consider it on the whole to be one of the things about men that is superior to women.
Men like action for the sake of action, and more often than not, they don't give a shit whether the outcome is good or bad.
Shouting Thomas ... and the biggest disadvantage is that they account for only about 5% of the PC's out there, which makes them difficult to adapt to large networked systems all running "Windows." I worked in and for DA/DOD...we called the rare locations with Apple gear "Orchards." The had to "graft" on Windows compatible OS thingamabobs to even participate....and then poorly.
My other reason for spite is personal...the Apple bastids refused to sell the mid to late 80's Macintosh for prices normal folks could afford. That said, I gave my better half an iPad for her birthday a couple years ago and I'm still hearing how sweet I was to do that. The adjective "sweet" is rarely applied to me.
Pssst: I do not believe that spell check just said "thingamabobs" was Kosher? But it did...no squiggly red lines.
SSD's fail after enough reading and writing, in my experience. I think it's a design feature.
They last way less time than HDs.
Aridog,
I just got it, and I thought it had storage in it but I have to buy it separate. It's still all solid state and pugs inside the small unit. You can get up to 250 Gig chips to go in it. It boots up very fast.
You can buy complete setups, or bare bones that you add stuff too. The thing is you can get a pretty decent system to all fit completely in the small box, or you can connect all kinds of peripherals as well, including external hard drives, and it handles up to 3 monitors simultaneous.
It's called the Intel NUC and they are available on Amazon.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/motherboards/desktop-motherboards/nuc-family.html
rhhardin said...
SSD's fail after enough reading and writing, in my experience. I think it's a design feature ... They last way less time than HDs.
That is what I was curious about.
I've got ancient IDE HDD's that are still readable/useable via a SATA/IDE drive docking station for 2.5 & 3.5 drives. This provides positive redundancy to my regular back up drives.
The question is can the SSD's do as well?
So where do I find this mud? I'm going to buy a red wig to dress her up a little. Think she'll mind that?
rhhardin said...
1. We can't solve the Navier Stokes equations. Hence there's no theory.
You would need to solve the Navier Stokes equations to predict the weather, not the climate. As with many phenomenon, you can predict a lot about the average of a lot of interactions without having to calculate them all. If I mix baking soda and vinegar, I can predict how much CO2 will be produced, without having to determine exactly which molecules in the baking soda react with which molecules in the vinegar.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle. Hence there's no data.
You don't need to tell a cycle from a trend to collect data, only to interpret it correctly.
I know these sorts of comments sound devastatingly witty, but all they do is provide ammunition for AGW believers to paint all skeptics as ignorant.
I should add that painting with ammunition is not recommended.
the biggest disadvantage is that they account for only about 5% of the PC's out there
Which is also why they are not a big target of hackers. Their lower viral infection rates are mainly because most hackers aren't bothering to try.
You would need to solve the Navier Stokes equations to predict the weather, not the climate
Actually you have to predict the response to a change in CO2, and this needs an ensemble average of NS solutions, not a solution of a made-up averaged equation.
It's the difference between take a deep breath and jump into the water and jump into the water and take a deep breath.
You don't need to tell a cycle from a trend to collect data, only to interpret it correctly
You can't interpret it at all. The eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, and not just a little.
There's no data for AGW is correct.
The point of the hockey stick was bypassing this mathematical truth. An explosion can't be a cycle so it must be a trend. (Large signal rules rather than small signal rules.)
The hockey stick however is dead, so you're back at small signal rules.
Which is also why they are not a big target of hackers. Their lower viral infection rates are mainly because most hackers aren't bothering to try.
That's part of it.
The other part is difficult to explain in detail, so I'll abbreviate it down to how it is manifested in practice.
If you do heavy media work on a PC, you will find yourself constantly opening up the Control Panel to fix some glitch or to reset some setting. You never have to do that on a Mac.
The system is more stable. I could explain why in programming terms, but it would take too long.
It's called the Intel NUC and they are available on Amazon.
Thanks, Bagoh.
And remember, kids, you can buy this through this here website's very own Amazon portal at NO ADDITIONAL COST to you!
If I mix baking soda and vinegar, I can predict how much CO2 will be produced, without having to determine exactly which molecules in the baking soda react with which molecules in the vinegar.
If you roll a little ball into a stationary big ball, conservation of energy tells you that the little ball will stop and the big ball will roll off slowly with the energy of the little ball.
Oh wait, that's wrong, isn't it. What could the problem be? I used a conservation law, after all.
Sometimes your conservation law isn't all that governs the situation.
And rolling balls is a really really simple thing, and here it is not working worth a damn.
Pardon the verbosity... but...
On a Mac, your web browser will attract and be infected with viruses, but the virus never makes it down into the OS.
You just flush it out of the browser.
rhhardin-
Do you have a link with a detailed explanation of why the Navier Stokes equations are needed for predicting CO2 sensitivity? ( unless you want to type out a detailed explanation here )
I am honestly interested in being better informed.
rhhardin said...
There's no data for AGW is correct.
The thermometer readings are data. ( You can certainly debate the quality of that data, but it is data none-the-less. ) Satellite based temperature measurements are also data, although care needs to be taken that the results are not incorrectly adjusted.
unless you want to type out a detailed explanation here
You have to know what the system we can't solve for does first, and then average over those results (say temperature distribution) for various initial conditions.
You can't replace e.g. a hyperbolic system by an elliptical one by averaging equations instead. The behaviors are wildly different.
A decision has been made not to bring that up in peer review.
The thermometer readings are data but not data-for.
The cycle data problem is the uncertainty principle, by the way. It's mathematically enforced by an exponential explosion in your error if you ignore it.
ST ... no argument from me that Apple Orchards are best for heavy media and publishing work, as well as photographic work in some people's eyes.
However, when you have to work across global networks with thousands of PC's and Servers, all oriented to MS Office Pro, SQL Server, and Oracle, if you use Apple you will also have to install the thingamabob software to utilize the Microsoft stuff handily. The thingamabob makes the Apple a PC, so what is the point...given that environment?
BTW I am not knocking Apple, just defining why I have little experience with them. I am, however, amused by the fact that although they have but 5% of the PC market, they make 45% of the profit from PC's. Which takes me back to my personal grudge about their domestic pricing for the original Mac's when I wanted one almost as much as mud for sex :-]
You just flush it out of the browser.
Oh, so it's like a toilet, eh?
rhhardin said...
...but not data-for.
I don't know what you mean by the term data-for.
BagoH20...thanks for the information. Once you add all the goodies you want, and the power cord/brick, the cost is similar to small form factor desktops with larger ordinary SATA HDD's. The advantage seems to be the very small form factor...and the fact it isn't actually part of the monitor for service/replacement purposes.
I'm going to ask the folks at B&H Photo Video about their experience with it.
It was 68 degrees this August morning here in the south.
Global warming my ass. It used to be a lot hotter.
Where are the snow cones of my youth?
Where are the snow cones of my youth?
They popped up on TY this AM
rhhardin-
Thanks for the expanded explanation. However, I'm looking for much more detail. I'm a math/science type, with some advanced stats, and some work fitting models to data.
I think most skeptics agree C02 will have some effect on Earth's temperatures. The big question is whether or not there is a large feedback loop on account of water vapor or not.
The IPCC has typically increased the C02 feedback by a factor of two (one degree C results in 3 degrees C in actual temperature rise).
Of course, the feedback could also be negative. So a degree C of increase from C02 might result in only .5 degree C in actual temperature rise.
If positive feedback is small, no need to worry. A degree or two isn't going to roast the earth. If it is large, then it's a problem.
Depending on how you count, the last 10 - 15 years of actual surface temperatures are not accommodating the models (the real world is not cooperating). So scientists are trying to find out what happened to the heat (Oh, it's in the oceans, it's aerosols from China, it's blah blah blah). In other words, no one really knows. At present, though, I would suggest trusting Mother Nature's results is a better bet than trusting computer models.
Another interesting anecdote is a guy named Steve McIntyre (famous skeptic for those who don't know) recently brushed off a 1938 model by a Steam Engineer who predicted a climate sensitivity of 1.67, then took the IPCC models and centered them to 1920 to 1940, and what he found is that the 1938 model had greater statistical skill than 10 of 12 models, and was not outperformed by any of them, with regards to lower atmospheric temperatures.
You can read about it here if you are interested.
In short, the system is incredibly complex. No one really knows how the earth is going to behave. At this point, my view is to invest in research, not in "solutions." For instance, research global dimming as a fail safe, research other energy sources (Thorium reactors come to mind). India and China will not come on board with expensive solutions like solar (though they are quite willing to sell this stuff to Europe and the US).
Okay, I understand what you mean by data-for, and I strongly disagree with the entire concept. Data is data. They have data. Lots of data.
If you believe that the data does not prove what they say it proves, you can certainly argue that ( and I would agree with you on that point ). But it doesn't change the fact that there is data.
I'm currently building up my stock of firewood for the winter.
Sorry, for each bit of firewood you burn, there is another tree replacing the wood. Firewood is neutral, due to capitalist forces.
Thanks for the expanded explanation. However, I'm looking for much more detail. I'm a math/science type, with some advanced stats, and some work fitting models to data.
Couple of points. Data on earth is probably much harder to get right than data from Satellites, for a lot of reasons. Anthony Watts has made a big stink about this over at wattsupwiththat.com. Reasons include that weather stations typically pop up where people are, and that fact may influence their temperatures. He also did a massive program in the US examining weather stations in the US, finding many many of them are poorly/incorrectly sited.
If you want to look at the actual data, you can get data from BEST, it's all open, or you can probably look at Steve McIntyre's website. He typically posts the data locations he uses and has managed to pull from the Paleo folks.
Dante said...
Depending on how you count, the last 10 - 15 years of actual surface temperatures are not accommodating the models (the real world is not cooperating). So scientists are trying to find out what happened to the heat (Oh, it's in the oceans, it's aerosols from China, it's blah blah blah). In other words, no one really knows.
I think we all know why this is ocurring. The "researchers" intention to justify political action and the resultant financial rewards caused them to shade the range of possibilities in favor of dramatic impacts. Even modest overestimations have a significant impact when ocurring serially and consistently in the same direction. The mistakes have caused their projections to break out of the confidence interval and discredit their "science".
The "researchers" intention to justify political action and the resultant financial rewards caused them to shade the range of possibilities in favor of dramatic impacts.
It's also fairly amazing to me that every warmist I have talked with believe the same thing: we in the US need to reduce energy use and adopt solar and wind.
But, it will not help in a meaningful way because Chinese (and Indian) emissions are eclipsing the rest of the world emissions.
Testimony at Barbara Boxer's global warming committee is the same thing. Democrats and warmists who testify, when asked their opinion, think we ought to screw the US economy for no gain. I'm at a loss to explain it.
Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!
You are saying that to hide the fact you are a green at heart. A giver such as you must be green.
your good heart will not allow you to hurt the environment. I'll bet you are a vegan, or will start eating test-tube meat as soon as it is available.
One of the first sites someone directed me to on the webs had a guessing game --- an array of photos of males with the question: Gay? or European?
The female counterpart was: Lesbian? or German?
Here's an interesting story from the BBC... apparently the U.S. is shipping waste timber to the U.K. where the wood is burned for power. You'd think this would be all green and eco-friendly, what with the carbon-neutralness of it, but no, the environmentalists just aren't happy about it. People aren't suffering enough, maybe.
Also, the piece has some grade-A global warming hysteria inside.
I am what is known as a lukewarmist. I buy the basic greenhouse gas story, I believe humanity has contributed to some of the planet's warming, but I don't believe anyone, skeptics included, knows for sure where the climate is going this century.
I doubt things will be as bad as the more alarmist orthodox paint it. I will bet that humanity will be more resilient than credited in meeting problems caused by climate. Even if there were a crisis I wouldn't trust the people who think the UN should have more power not to make things much worse.
When there's no data and no theory, the correct position is pay no attention.
Any alarm is one you make up.
Which they did. Alarm pays.
rhhardin said...
Alarm pays.
And there, in two words, you have the core motivation for all this AGW hysteria. Grants, "credits" sales, "credits sales" commissions, "carbon credit exchanges," "carbon taxes," et al ad infinitum. Grifters and politicians are never finished milking the $$$ from any crisis of hysteria.
I don't dispute that humans and machines contribute to greenhouse gases, just as volcanos and forest fires do. I don't object to efforts to pollute less and produce more, however in my experience, in travels and locally, I think most of the serious atmospheric pollutions are local or regional at best. My expereince in cities and in wilderness suggests to me that that earth has the means to adapt. I am highly amused that man, in his bureaucratic hubris, thinks he is smarter and can out perform "mother nature."
When there's no data and no theory, the correct position is pay no attention.
I have no patience with the absolutist skeptic position. There is a theory and there is data. Whether it's the right theory for current conditions remains to be seen. It's standard stuff going back to Arrhenius.
Greenhouse-driven climate change is not for everyone's attention but I want some scientists on it. That doesn't mean I want to give these scientists and their advocates carte blanche to remake the world's energy infrastructure.
I don't see how anyone can rule out the possibility that global temperatures could start rising again like in the nineties and if that went on long enough it could be a problem.
Post a Comment