To make the case for the kind of madness going on at the Copenhagen summit, those trying to limit emissions need to show that:
- The earth has been warming.
- This has been happening at unprecedented levels.
- This has happening because of human interference.
- The earth will continue to warm, if our emissions continue as projected.
- This will, overall, have a negative effect on the state of the world.
- Cutting emissions will make a difference (given how far we're in already).
- Government can, through various forms interference, force emissions down.
- This interference is worse than the negative effect of point 3.
- This interference is better than aid solutions (preparing third world countries for these negative effects of warming).
- This interference is better than geo-engineering research/efforts.
So please would the politicians, media, alarmists, greens and socialists out there please stop pretending this debate is between noble, world-loving scientific upholders of 'Truth' and baby-eating flat-earthers who want Bangladesh wiped off the planet.
Besides, if Bangladesh was wiped out, who else would England be guaranteed to beat at cricket?
10 comments:
How about Iceland? Actually not if Tom from Iceland is playing - legendary athlete.
But can you please learn to spell emissions?
Who's paying you to bring such destructive common sense to the debate? Big oil right? BNP connections? Ken Hamm?
Anonymous (aka Dad)- Emissions was always spelt correctly and you can't prove otherwise.
Glen - I like the way that the list you provide descends from bad to worse (in the eyes of the true believers).
Surely the certainty of the latter claims does rest on the truth (or otherwise) of the first few?
So, for instance, if one believes that the first 5 are nearly 100% certain, the likelihood of 6 being nearly 100% certain is increased dramatically.
Whereas if you believe that 3, say, is unlikely or untrue, the whole house of cards (as you see it) will come crashing down.
The whole thing really does hinge on number 3, actually. Not many people with an iota of sense would dispute 1 or 2. The way the world has changed during my lifetime is plain to see as far as I'm concerned, and that's without going to where the real action is (Bangladesh, for instance).
Anyway, put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you think...
Sure, 3 is the biggy and without it the later ones are meaningless. I'm unsure of it and I think that the more sceptics who are more scientific than me have raised some valid questions.
However, due to the seriousness of the problem, I'm willing to give the climate change believers a pass on that one, and at least think about how best to deal with it.
But my point here is that most people trust the scientists on point 3 and go straight to economy crippling 'solutions' that probably won't do anything anyway apart from cripple the economies of the countries most likely to be affected, before even considering the other questions, and sidelines anyone who doesn't believe in Kyoto and Copenhagen as if they're crazy/stupid/evil.
The way this is so convenient for secular humanism, with its idolatry of Demos (the people) especially as incarnate to us in the State, ought to at least make us pause for thought over the solutions being offered, even if we're sure the science is correct.
Or that's what I think anyway.
Hi Paul. What have you read which has made you suspicious?
I can reccommend 3 books
Global Warming the Complete Briefing by Sir John Houghton
Enough is Enough, edited by RJ Berry
Green Alternatives to Globalisation: A Manifesto, by Woodin & Lucas
Otherwise, here are some resources well worth reading
JRI briefing paper, applying the story of Joseph
Climate Stewards
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
Economist Lead Article this week
John Ray Initiative CC Overview
Sir John Houghton Lecture at CiS, Cambridge
JRI briefing
Sir John commenting on snide opportunism by Russians & Saudis
Pete- I agree.
Chris,
Thanks for the links. I've checked out a few of them, and will take a proper look later in time.
In terms of what makes me suspicious, I keep an eye on Climate Audit, amongst other blogs, and although I don't know a lot about the science involved, I do have a pretty good understanding of statistics and data modelling and know how easily these things can go wrong.
As for climategate; I think anyone with an open mind who followed the situation for long enough would have suspected some of these things to be going on (excluding sceptics from peer review, secretive goings on etc.). This doesn't mean that a) it's a conspiracy or b) that it's wrong, but the possibilities do need to be looked into.
Er actually not Chromatistes but your non-lactating sister. Dad won't remember Tom from Iceland.
Tom from Iceland rings bells but I cannot remember anything about him. Care to jog a memory?
Post a Comment