Comments on: So, we’re not all going to drown, or be killed by hurricanes?

By: Akston

Akston — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:37:15 +0000

As my great-grandmother (who was born in 1889) used to tell me, they’ve been predicting the end of the world since she was a child. She ended before the world did.

But she did see Great Depression I, and many droughts and rainy seasons. I grew up during the Cold War but haven’t thought in apocalyptic terms since the late 1980′s. The more I live, the more I’m starting to agree with her.

This is not to say that the climate couldn’t possibly be changing, or that the United States isn’t headed for Great Depression II and possibly an adjustment to “second world” status.

It’s simply to say that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, to quote or paraphrase Sagan, Truzzi, Laplace or Hume.

Personally, I’m leaning towards: The globe is indeed warming, but most probably due to natural cycles in the climate that have too many variables to predict any wild outcomes. And that the American economy is also extremely complex, but is much more susceptible to short-sighted forceful intervention than a planetary climate.

The commonality is that groups in both arenas think they can adjust those complex systems to suit only intended and benevolent goals. I think they’re wrong.

By: Fred

Fred — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:37:56 +0000

USA Endgame.

Obama clearly wants to stop the vicious ‘spend to stimulate’ cycle, but he can’t. He has no genius plan to save the US.

He can’t do what Americans loathe, and that is, pain now, gain later. NEVER. INSTANT WALMART GRATIFICATION.

It’s over, writing is on the wall.

By: Quincy

Quincy — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:36:40 +0000

Miko –

There is absolutely no validity to the concept of scientific consensus. It is fallacious. In science, there is only theory and evidence.

So far, I see consensus supporting a theory with extremely questionable evidence. The consensus models for proving that global warming is manmade assume constant solar energy coming into the environmental system and completely ignore negative feedback looks in favor of positive ones. Considering these two conditions will *never* happen in nature, I view the theory as yet to be proven. To say it is proven by consensus is to forgo real analysis in favor of a logical fallacy.

Do you accuse me of science denial?

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:15:41 +0000

We do talk about the sun’s role: it provides the background amount of global warming necessary to sustain life. By the same token, having a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a good thing. Get to little and you turn into Mars; get too much and you turn into Venus. Since we evolved to exist in an environment like ours, it follows almost from definition that the amount we have naturally is the amount that we want to have. While how much variation is acceptable is a valid question, the vapid proposition that the sun is also a source of global warming just makes you look scientifically illiterate.

I’ve always thought of the Democrats as the party of economics denial and the Republicans as the party of science denial. It’s sad to see so many libertarians falling from the _actual_ rationalist position into the latter category as well. Yes, you can find one or two “experts” talking outside of their area of expertise who’ll downplay climate change, but you should ask yourself why you’re ignoring the vast consensus in favor of these experts. It doesn’t have anything to do with their arguments really, does it? You just prefer their conclusions.

There are valid questions as to what (if anything) we need to do about global warming, but if your politics are instead forcing you to completely deny reality, you should consider changing your politics.