The science is NOT settled.
And just like my comment about the Vancouver Olympic doom-shouters, nothing sells newspapers (or gets hits on your site) like an alarmist headline... In this case, nothing gets more grant money shoveled down the shitter than a "Esteemed Scientist" shouting "ZOMG! TEH ICE IS ALL MELTING! THERE'LL BE NONE FOR THE CONGRESSMAN'S MARTINI!!!1!"
No one with two brain cells to rub together (except a few Hooters waitresses) denies that things they are a'changin'... the question is how much we are actually causing it, and how enacting draconian laws and stupid regulations and levying taxes to fund it all is going to change it.
All in the name of Green-ness?
No, all in the name of control, power and money...
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels
Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Climate panel: Time for a refit?
Climate Scientists Withdraw Rising Sea Level ClaimWorld may not be warming, say scientists
TBG- ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
6 comments:
but but but... Al Gore said it was so. He's been flying his private jet all over the world and staying up late in his 30-room mansion worrying about the crisis and thinking about all the things that WE (not him) can do to save the planet. Surely it can't be that all his vast scientific knowledge is for naught.
hmm, hey boss, should we factor solar cycles into these computer models? How do we blame our oil addiction for it being warmer back in medieval times?
You gotta stop thinking about this stuff and checking the data. All the heavy lifting has been done by people way, way smarter than you, so... don't peek under the kimono, m'kay?
Oh, and I think it all depends on what the definition of "settled" is, right?
My first point: all of these scientific models are based on human assumptions - which are typically wrong. Prime example: the weatherman is typically wrong in the long term.
My second point: I believe that humans have an effect on the environment. My solution is not carbon credits. It is simply building greener technology now (with subsidies I'll admit). Greener technology built in the US does three things. Creates jobs, creates a cleaner US environment and most importantly, decreases our dependency on foreign oil. And as a bonus we can become the worlds leader in green tech and start profiting from exporting this technology. Right now we lag behind the Scandanavian countries and China.
Now to Bug's point - I listen to Al Gore about as much as I listen to the Messiah Glen Beck.
My ultimate solution; take away the tax breaks and subsidies to the oil companies (estimated between 15 and 35 Billion per year) and turn that into "green power."
Climate change or no climate change, green energy is the best long term solution we could be buying right now.
Uncle Jay, I need your help! I am about to book a ticket on Greyhound for a trip I am taking next week. They gave me the option to donate another $1 to my ticket price to purchase a carbon credit for my trip. Do you think I should do this?
No, Slaw...
In actuality, you shouldn't be traveling by bus or even by airplane!
To be truly Green, you should walk to your destination, wearing only homespun all-natural vegan-neutral clothes.
Save the Planet!
TBG
I completely disagree t-rav.
There is no doubt that the world is going to pump up and burn every drop of oil. Even if the west switches to alternatives the second and third world will still have to burn the oil. And that's not taking into account the other products like plastics that we get from oil - even if all our energy was derived from alternatives, we'd still use up the oil.
So if we're going to burn it all anyway, there are only three questions.
1. How much will we pollute the earth before we run out of oil
2. Who is going to have the economic strength to take advantage of a non-oil world
3. Who is going to have the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy
How much will we pollute the earth before we run out of oil?
Due to cleaner, more efficient technology the west pollutes less per drop of oil than the second and third world. Our auto's and plants are cleaner than those found is less modernized nations.
Imagine if we stopped all oil usage today, the third world would still burn up every drop of oil. Except they would burn all that oil using smoky, nasty polluting technology.
From the environmental perspective it would be better if the west burns that oil - it would produce less total pollution.
Who is going to have the economic strength to take advantage of a non-oil world?
At the rate China, India, Indonesia and other second world countries are mushrooming economically, the west is in real danger of being overtaken economically. These countries economies are even more oil dependent than the west. It would be in the west's best interest to use up all the oil as fast as possible before we become the second world countries.
Who is going to have the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy?
Currently only the west has the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy. But, as time passes, the second world will be more capable of making the switch, and do it easier and cheaper than us. Therefore, again, the faster we burn up the oil the better positioned we will be when it runs out.
Ancillary bonus to running out of oil.
Once we pump out the last drop of oil that will finally take some of the more troublesome countries of the world out of play. Such countries who make fortunes from their oil production, all the while hating the west with every breath. The faster those countries run out of unlimited income, the less likely we will have hostile, nuclear armed countries sprouting up everywhere.
So I say burn it all, burn it fast, don't look back.
Post a Comment