14 thoughts on “How Stupid Does He Think We Are?”

  4. The “I haven’t heard about it” defense is the new mantra of the left when they want to deny congnisance of troublesome news deliberately not carried on dinosaur media ABC, CBS, NBC, none of whom have had a news story on Climategate to date.

  5. Economist, New Scientist and the like seem to be keeping well clear of the ClimateGate saga, not that I can blame them. One will crack soon, once the dust settles and they are very sure of their facts.

    I would have to say that up until a week or two ago I was still giving the Climate “Scientists” the benefit of the (admittedly significant) doubt. ClimateGate has prompted a great many people to study the case more closely.

    I am not even sure that CO2 significantly causes global warming anymore, but this does not mean that AGW or AGC is not a serious concern, or even that natural global warming/cooling is not a serious concern. It is difficult to imagine that 6.8 billion people intensively farming a large proportion of the Earth’s surface would not be having a significant impact on global climate.

    We need better science, I suspect we need better climate sensing satellites as well. This is not something humanity should be leaving to chance. If we can not even conclusively discern CO2 global warming what other serious potentially world destroying effects are we missing? How ignorant are we?

    People are advocating spending 1% of global GDP on reducing CO2 emissions on a just in case AGW is right basis. But what of the opportunity cost of the 10,000 other possible things that threaten humanity? Do not they therefore also deserve 1% of global GDP too?

    As for alternative energy, I would still have to say that sustainable, cheap and self sufficient energy is very high on the priority list, independent of AGW. I fear a lot of good things will be thrown out in the backlash, to the world’s detriment. I would ask people to think beyond the backlash, the Earth and all life on it, still needs to be protected from potential threats natural and unnatural, known and unknown.

    Just because CO2 induced AGW seems to be a hoax does not mean that humanity can be ignorant and do whatever it likes without fear of consequence.

  7. Just because CO2 induced AGW seems to be a hoax does not mean that humanity can be ignorant and do whatever it likes without fear of consequence.

    So be good, for goodness’ sake! Whoa, somebody’s coming. …

  9. I am starting to see the re-contextualization happen that will allow the AGW true believers to solve their collective cognitive dissonance. It works like this:

    [sarc]
    AGW, oh that turns out to be overwhelmed by volcanos|sunlight|rainbows|clouds but the real damage being done to Mother Earth by evil human capitalist (you) is mercury|plastic|deforestation|invasive species|ATVs. If only all of humanity could see the damage they are doing and instead give all their money to East Harvard University’s center for plastic mitigation offset studies things might be OK — but we only have 4 years before it is too late.
    [sarc off]

    Well, here’s what I think. Humans drill, plow, chop and mine. We make houses, schools, hospitals, laboratories and other great edifices that displace and squash little furry things. We blow things up and shoot giant rockets into space. We exhale gases, leak fluids, and drop solid waste because that is how these things get done.

    And I respect, honor and admire all of it.

    We do all these things and that is what it means to be human. We LIVE. We remake the planet, tiny bit, by tiny bit and that is a just, proper and wonderful thing.

    The Gaia religionists are deeply anti-human. I believe we need to shine light on their ideas — sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.

  10. Is he also unfamiliar with the CEI suit against NASA regarding CEI’s FOIA requests? Somebody should ask him.

  12. Pete @ December 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    While your public concern does you credit, I think you need to temper it with a little realism.

    It is difficult to imagine that 6.8 billion people intensively farming a large proportion of the Earth’s surface would not be having a significant impact on global climate.

    Define “large”. According to NewScientist, which I will assume may be taken at face value, 28 million square kilometres (22 per cent) of ice-free land surface is covered in pasture and 15 million square km (12 per cent) is used to grow crops. What their percentages omit is that the surface area of the Earth is 500 million square kilometers, so we’re really talking 5.6% and 3% of the entire surface, respectively. Personally, I would not expect this to impact our climate more than, I dunno, 8.6% in general terms. It is entirely subjective, but that does not qualify as “significant” to me.

    As for alternative energy, I would still have to say that sustainable, cheap and self sufficient energy is very high on the priority list, independent of AGW.

    Except for geothermal and nuclear power (can anyone think of any others?), I think it is safe to say that all “alternative” energy, and conventional energy (pace Thomas Gold) is essentially solar energy. The difference is that the conventional energy sources have been storing up that energy for millennia. IMHO, there is no way any instantaneous conversion of solar energy into work producing energy is going to compete with that until and if it is all gone.

  14. Pingback: They Can’t Bring Themselves To Swear To Honesty « Tai-Chi Policy

Comments are closed.