TCSdaily has an interesting piece on the lack of economic feasibility of the Kyoto Protocol.
Here’s my very brief take on Global Warming.
1. Chemistry had it’s roots in alchemy, in which very weird men thought different incantations could change the chemical properties of something into gold. It was the folly of many who believed they held dominion over things of this world.
2. Genetics had it’s roots in eugenics, which, with the help of some very active governments:
“Three generations of imbeciles is enough” Oliver Wendell Holmes
this pseudoscience was used as a tool for holocaust and forced sterilization.
3. Neuroscience started with, in modern terms, phrenology, the belief that the shape of the skull determines what kind of person you are. Weird, but not as harmful as eugenics.
Climate science is a science in it’s infancy. Like these other examples, grandiose claims are made based on the first order approximation of what scientists are seeing with a very small fraction of available data.
One problem is interpretation of data using new tools. Let’s say I have a new scanning procedure for detecting the plaques that supposedly cause Alzheimer’s Disease. Now, let’s say It turns out more people have a lot of the plaques than we thought, even if they don’t have any symptoms of AD. What if everyone over fifty had these plaques. Would my paper be titled, “85% of people over 50 have Alzheimer’s!”, or would I rethink my hypothesis that the plaques are really a problem?
Climate science, as a science, is being driven by the media and governments far too interested in limiting the sovereignty of the US, China, India, and Russia. Scientists who might be happy to study non-global warming climate are more than willing to feed the alligators (read:media) more of what they want to hear in order to get a grant funded.
Posted at 10:14 pm by Johnny B
|Posted by Name @ 12/13/2005 02:37 AM PST|
|This is yet another idiotic statement made by a Republican and influenced by Republican rhetoric. (And from a very smart guy too!) You completely ignore the facts and evidence pointing towards the reality of the global warming phenomenon and instead try to liken climate science to alchemy. This reminds me of Jordan’s argument a while back that began with “Of Liberals and Men” and tried to suggest that gutless men with little drive and courage gravitated towards the left. “You liberals and environmentalists are doo-doo heads!” Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. The baselessness of your post and the degenerate attitudes of the right towards the environment and towards Global Warming are rooted in the very first point your make (which in fact has nothing to do with the rest of your post): economic feasibility. It is not in the interest of those a) in big business, b) who are in power c) in Washington, and d) the fools who favor this Administration’s policies and thus approximately fifty percent of the United States, to believe in Global Warming. Interest. Economic interest. Who in the oil, gas, and automotive industries would be willing to say Global Warming is real? Really? Wouldn’t they be risking their jobs? Those people will continue ignoring global warming not because of evidence on the contrary but because they want to continue buying their big cars and nice houses. Economics affects not just how people make decisions but also what they believe in. People in the oil business (and these people rule Washington) are making too much money too dump their business and their fortunes in favor of relaxing the environment and natural resources. That is why global warming doesn’t exist for these people. Not because of your petty ideas of climate science being under developed. Bah.|
|Posted by John Broussard @ 12/13/2005 10:52 AM PST|
If you thought “…Grandiose claims are made based on a first order approximation of what scientists are seeing with a very small fraction of available data” meant “environmentalists are doo-doo heads”, I’m sorry for the confusion. I don’t think your comments are appropriate. If you want to present an argument, do so. I can get into more detail on my thoughts here, but I will not tolerate this nonsense.
With regards to your more appropriate comments on oil companies: One way to reduce emissions in general would be to use natural gas and nuclear power instead of coal. If the oil companies are in charge, why not push for more natural gas power plants instead of coal? I’m no coal expert but I don’t think Exxon, BP, etc. own a lot of coal mines.
|Posted by John Broussard @ 12/13/2005 10:54 AM PST|
|Who is this? Please shoot me an e-mail @ firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Posted by Shoobox @ 12/13/2005 12:11 PM PST|
|I thought Oil Companies are in a perfect position to actually do something about becoming less gas dependent and they are…they have the money and the expertise to do so.|
|Posted by BP @ 12/13/2005 03:06 PM PST|
|They also have the motivation. Anyone who believes that combustible fuel engines have an indefinite lifespan is dreaming, and major oil and automotive companies are investing BILLIONS into these alternatives.
In the meantime, it is definitely not in their best interest to tout the virtues of global warming whether it is or is not based on sound science. More could definitely be done, but there is no denying that in the SHORT TERM it is unlikely that oil will be a non-entity in our energy policies, and there is no doubt that that money talks, and we got a “less than impressive” energy bill because of it.
Thanks for the comments, though.