Two quick global warming related issues:
First, two reports were recently released exonerating the Climategate scientists. One was released by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency* and another by a special British investigation. The scientists "didn't skew science to inflate evidence of man-made global warming," but were a little too secretive and acted like doofuses in some cases. But the science is sound. Should we expect apologies from all the people (I'm looking your way, Beck, Hannity, DeMint, et al) that smeared them in a political ploy to debunk the idea that humans are causing global warming thereby avoiding regulations on greenhouse gases? Probably not.
Second, a large chunk of America is now suffering under a massive heat wave. Can we assume that the skeptics will take this as evidence of global warming just as they take news of cold weather as evidence of its falsehood? Again, probably not.
*On a side note, as a person of Dutch heritage with the most outrageous Dutch name you will ever encounter, let me just express my extreme pleasure with how the World Cup is unfolding. Once David Villa gets a mouthful of Van Bommel's elbow and a thighful of his cleats, I expect Spain to fold and become as irrelevant in world soccer as they are in world politics. Am I taking this too seriously? Probably. Hup!
Friday, July 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
One of the reports you mention, does not address the destruction of data. The standard of science in this debate is still underdeveloped.
According to my warmist friends, a cold spell does not change the trend; I argue that if cold does not refute the warmist theory, then so does heat not refute the warmist theory. In fact the scientists are so convinced of their theory, that there is no evidence to refute their theory. Thus the debate is over and we can get down to the solutions.
Do we force people to change their life style or do we let them decide to make changes?
Taxes, Jail Time and Reeducation or Trade, Freedom and Choice?
The part about a heat spell proving global warming was tongue-in-cheek. I don't know why you think, though, that scientists ignore evidence that refutes global warming. There is no evidence of this sort of behavior anywhere. If you can find it please let me know. They have been studying global warming for decades from every conceivable angle. Just because no one is able to refute it does not mean no one is trying and scientists are ignoring contrary evidence. That doesn't mean there isn't a certain amount of variance in the potential outcomes, either, but after years of study, the science is generally settled. No serious scientific study has ever been provided to the contrary.
The question about what to do about the science is more interesting. If we let the free market reign without bounds then the problem will only get worse. There is no incentive for corporations to not pollute if there is no price tag attached. We have to influence the markets gradually, while we still have the chance, to reduce pollution, thereby saving us all a really uncomfortable moment in the future when drastic changes will have to be made in short order.
The warmists say that there is no serious evidence to the contrary. The warmist scientists get all the government funding. Therefore the science is settled; there is no evidence to go against the warmist theories. I am comfortable conceding the warmist view. Now for the implication of their view...
It is easy to make a logical move to the final solution. Man causes catastrophic global warming. Man is mortal. Kill man and the world is saved. This is the statist view. It will be a utopia with no poor, disease, or evil.
I have a different view. Liberty is the solution. If corporations are the problem, change leadership. Buy the stock and change the board of directors, fire the CEO. Start a new competitor; defeat the "polluting" company with a better solution, product, or business plan. Do not use the force of government to pick favored companies - because it corrupts them, both the government and the corporation.
Post a Comment