Interesting Perspective on Climate Change

[Meliora]

(Wasn't sure where to put this mod's, move at will.)

The guy in this video approaches climate change from a simple, but I think insightful, standpoint: http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[Chimera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager

A similar type of analysis. So atheists beware, if you accept this argument for global warming, you might find yourself undergoing another type of conversion!

The thing is, you can construct that type of argument for any possible catastrophe, no matter how remote. It also takes no account of what we can actually do about it.

Here's another perspective from an economist.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

[EL84]

Michael Crichton has some stuff (opposite viewpoint) on similar topic too:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html

Some of his ideas are informed by his background in medical research, particularly his need for a strict control. We don't yet have a control planet.

[sorabji_66]

futurisms are nice, but have a horrible track record.

[demagogic_schizoid]

futurisms are nice, but have a horrible track record.

Scientific research is "futurism"?

It's not really complicated. scientists can ascertain certain ways the planet operates, and deduce that if A performs function B, then reducing numbers of A will decrease occurence of function B .

This is no more a "futurism" than me saying to you, "if you cut your ears off, you will go deaf".

[omnirook]

I knew that I vaguely remembered from my childhood a panic about the coming Ice Age, everyone swearing up and down that the world was getting colder, that we'd be covered in piles of snow and ice year-round. I knew I remembered that. Thank you for the link to Michael Crichton

[EL84]

No worries. I don't know whether I agree with Mr. Crichton, but I appreciate his logic, and his history. I agree with what he says about the Drake Equation/SETI, and modelling in general - if you stick one unknown in the model, let alone many, then it's just a guess masquerading as an equation with some authority. I have seen this many times in local politics relating to very mundane matters.


...It's not really complicated. scientists can ascertain certain ways the planet operates, and deduce that if A performs function B, then reducing numbers of A will decrease occurence of function B...

I think I agree with you. But this kind of thing is attacked as unscientific because there's no test and no control. That may be so, but I think there must be some kind of useful way to operate in this area, even it's not strictly "scientific". What's the distinction - inductive reasoning instead of deductive? (Abductive always makes me think someone is captured and not released until they agree.)

I have tried briefly to find some hard data on the subject. Basically I failed, and came away with the impression that it would require much effort to be able to evaluate this, with possibility of never being able to.

[ajblaise]

Michael Crichton:

"Second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.

"Environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s."


I read through some of his articles. I initially wanted to believe that this guy might be an intelligent voice for his side of this debate, but was disappointed.

[airjaw]

I think that the case for global warming is definitely not 100% sound.
There's still so much we don't understand and are just plain ignorant of.
That said, I don't think the growing concern is a bad thing. Finding ways to pollute less and be more responsible citizens of the earth can't be bad in any way. As Americans with almost unlimited resources, we inevitably waste a lot of them. Thats just what happens when you have a lot of something. Lot of land, relatively cheap gas, etc. its time for us to change our habits.

[EL84]

Interesting talk on radio today:

Science and Public Policy : the Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2153491.htm)

The term "virtuous corruption" is used comparing some environmentalists to corrupt cops who are sure they know who the criminal is, and manufacture evidence to suit. Also a bit in there about problems with computer modelling.

Regarding the computer modelling, has anyone ever come across an open computer climate model that you could actually use yourself, plug in some data, play with variables? I'm really hanging out to see some hard data and fiddle with one myself, well perhaps not hanging out so much as sort of eyeing up places one might hang out of while remaining quite inert.

They mentioned this website: Climate Debate Daily (http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/). It has something for almost everyone.

FirSt link on the Side of diSSent intereSted me: The Little Car that Environmentalists Love to Hate (http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/01/the_little_car_that_environmen.shtml) But that's because I dislike Priusesesess. Smug little shit boxes that weigh too much, look like Terence Stamp from behind, with worse mileage than a Morris Minor. Even a current VW Golf does better than a Prius, and it doesn't need a massive cargo of toxic waste to do it. Well maybe it's a useful first try, let's hope the second and subsequent iterations are a lot better. I'm completely in favour of fuel efficiency, I just think hybrids carrying batteries is a stupid way to do it.

Just as an aside - if every car goes electric (which clearly won't happen anytime soon - and yes I realise Priusesss don't draw energy from the power grid) our electricity distribution infrastructure will be struggling. We're all set up to move liquid hydrocarbons around, and it's very compact form of evergy. Our current electricity generation and distribution can handle household energy loads. That's an order of magnitude away from transportation energy requirements.

I think we're sort of dicking around the edges, like when we spent ages colouring in the border of the title page on our school assignment, and deluded ourselves that we were being productive. Still I suppose when you've built up enough tension during the colouring in phase, you suddenly churn out a turd of an assignment, and you pass. YAY!