Given that the proposed actions to thwart the questionably predicted climate changes are expensive (and unlikely to be effective, even if we know where the climate is going), it makes no sense to take any action at this time. And if we do begin to find credible evidence that the climate will change in a predictable manner, we might then consider whether it makes more sense to attempt to change the climate dynamics or, instead, to adapt to the change.
There are degrees of scientific credibility that can be demonstrated through good practice with full public disclosure. Global warming alarmists haven't met that standard. In fact, they've demonstrated a disdain for good science, and we didnt need the leaked e-mails to prove it.

The consensus among global warming activists is that we must coercively reduce the production of greenhouse gases. The proposed actions will have little effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide, compared with natural causes and the emissions of developing nations. Think of all the strato-volcanoes throughout time that have erupted, throwing trillions of cubic tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, metal chlorides, and ash into the atmosphere. The effect on climate from volcanoes over the past several billion years dwarfs the effects people wreak from burning fossil fuels. The global warming activists fail to make a prima facie case for applying their proposed remedies. Even if I accept all they say as fact, their conclusions don't logically follow.
Coercive proposals are floating through Congress (stalled, fortunately) as we speak, and many "evironmental" groups and a large percentage of the Democratic Party advocate coercive measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Al Gore traffics in deception and the duped call him a prophet.
1 comment:
I never thought about the effect of volcanoes. One blow of those would seem to be so much more devastating.
Great thoughts David!
Post a Comment