Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ahem... This was expected and running true to form. With all the Clinton cronies in line, I wonder where Monica Lewinski's office is going to be?
he is Intelligent,sensible and liberal.
Although I am not a regular reader in the Salon, I have on several occasions read your very readable column. You are perhaps the only readable readable that I have read that is so readable
I'm going to read you much more often.
A letter writer writes about the "crusade against global warming": "In both cases, there are 'experts' who tell us that evidence justifying action is undeniable. They say, 'The risk of doing nothing is too great for us to do nothing.' And as a fallback position they say, 'Even if we're wrong, we'll still be doing some good in the world.'"
To which Camille the expert provocateur responds: "Wonderful letter!"
I am kind of boggled.
First, comparing the global climate change "crusade" with the Neo-Conservative war-mongering prior to 2003 makes sense from only one angle: you are committing huge amounts of public money to an endeavor whose possibly dubious necessity relies on the testimony of experts in their respective fields.
The only logical footing Camille and the letter writer could possibly have in this argument is the validity of expert testimony. Do you believe the huge cadre of scientists who have signed on to the notion that human activity has some effect on the climate, or do you believe the opponents who seem to be composed mainly of the Republican faithful, and -- surprise -- oil company execs and automakers who are opposed to altering their business model to include planning for a future that's not dependent on making as much profit in the shortest amount of time possible. Okay, whatever.
Second, the idea that the justification "Even if we're wrong, we'll still be doing some good in the world" is by necessity promoting a falsehood based on the Bush Admin's failures, is a red herring.
You should ask instead whether investing in environmentally friendly alternative energy research and development is such a bad thing, particularly in light of the world's rapidly dwindling petroleum supply, and the wars we will wage to control and own the last little drops.
Third you cannot make comparisons to this end: the cost of the Iraq war, vs. the cost of minimizing our impact on the planet.
The data posted on the Heartland website is scientific data. Deal with it.
It is interesting that one calling himself Iconoclast is a member of the Church of Global Warming, persecuting heretics, true iconoclasts, and standing foursquare behind the dogma of his faith-based religion.
and guppies have caused the meltdown of the north pole glaciers, blah. blah, blah and the moon gravity causes homely females of Italian ancestry to become lesbians, blah, blah, blah, and Pailin is smart and intelligent, blah, blah, blah and Limbaugh is a thoughtful original voice, blah, blah, blah, and Daniela Mercury is more alive than Elis regina, blah, blah, blah.
Before industrialization, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, or PPM. Today, it is 360PPM, nearly a 33% increase, and is not attributable to volcanic activity, or an organic source. Those who call our contribution minuscule are plain liars, nothing more. If they are not, I suggest they propose an alternate source of nearly a third increase of CO2 in the last 100 years, during which volcanoes were quite well documented, that fits the available facts.
Before us, the amount of co2 was a balance between animals and plants. Since we have upset the balance, the amount in the air has increased dramatically vs recent history, and along with it has come a warming, predicted by science within less than a degree for many decades.
One way to think about it is that if someone spins a ball on their finger, you can upset the balance with a tiny poke of your finger, even though that poke is minuscule compared to the overall force of the spinning ball. Just a little poke will knock the ball off the finger.
However, our contribution from industrial use may now be equal to about 1 ton per person, per year, a number that dwarfs volcanic activity in most years, including the majority of the last 100. Volcanic activity contributes 100s of millions of tons, human activity tens of billions.
These are simply facts: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
That is the US Geological survey, and it quite disagrees with the assertions bandied about here, regarding the "real" science, and about what geologists think.
When the conservative think tank scientists funded by Phillip Morris and Exxon come up with a better prediction of global warming than the real scientists, who stand behind their predictions, then their opinion is relevant. Until then, it really isn't.
1) I don't lie.
2) The default position of liberals who cannot debate a topic is that their opponents are liars.
3) Thus it is that calling everyone a liar is the National Sport of Leftyland. I hear they tried to get it into the Summer Olympics but failed. Their second choice was Casting Aspersions, similar to the javelin toss but propelled by a nasty tongue rather than a strong arm or educated brain.
It is enough to make one long for the day when one could challenge such a cad, one who goes around throwing out the "liar" epithet, to a duel and run him through with an epee.
I'll have to settle for simple disparagement.
Since the topic was broached.
Just because I'm an Iconoclast, it doesn't mean I have to agree with all of your crackpot ideas.
There is a tiny point of reason in Iconoclast (NOT)'s last post: Chaos theory would suggest that minor changes now COULD create huge changes in the future.
The problem is we have no way to predict what minor change it would be or which direction the future change would go, or even what the future change would be.
The computer models are, perforce, linear models. Regarding climate change, someone of great perception said that computer models are much like masturbation, in that one who limits himself to such and in great quantity may come to think it is real sex.
Computer models have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of long-term climate prediction. 1) We don't have enough background data. 2) We can't model a chaotic system by linear models. 3) We constantly have to fudge the parameters of the climate models to keep them from predicting that it will be 400 degrees Fahrenheit the week after next.
Believing that we can predict climate change when we can't get a decent hurricane season forecast a few weeks in advance--or even in the middle of hurricane season!--is simply screwball thinking.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
