tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post7944944270194576283..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: 50 years of climate hysteriaPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27281252331778647492019-12-17T09:51:18.530+13:002019-12-17T09:51:18.530+13:00“From an anthropic principle i would say a tempera...“From an anthropic principle i would say a temperature the current life systems can thrive in.”<br /><br />They can’t thrive. Since the die-off of the mammalian mega-fauna, our ecosystem has been in flux. The only thing we know for certain is that no ecosystem studied in detail by humans has been stable or thriving. <br />Prior to the rise of global warming scare mongering, the Eocene Thermal Maximum was referred to as the Eocene Climate Optimum. In the Late Cretaceous the ocean circulation system SHUT DOWN due to the world being too warm, and life thrived (this ended 5 million years before the K/Pg, by the way). Life as we know it demonstrably thrives in significantly warmer climates than we have today. <br />“There are only 5 or 6 communist regimes left so i guess that you are referring to china.”<br /><br />My statement should have been “regimes”; sometimes my “s” key sticks. My point is, if the we aren’t even willing to take actions that have a chance to succeed (and any agreement that hamstrings Western energy production without affecting China and India is going to fail), there’s no point in discussing these issues. <br />“Government Control is a start…”<br />That you think this is telling. But tell me: How successful are the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Terror? Even if we accept the patently absurd premise that government intervention was appropriate, the simple fact is that the government has proven itself incompetent. <br />As for my pessimism, I’d say it’s realistic. We simply do not have the desire to change, not as a people. And the solutions so far offered are either woefully inadequate (renewable energy—and before you object, I’ve worked on these power plants and know pretty well the secretes the Green Energy advocates try to keep quiet) or amount to “Give up your lifestyle”. The first won’t work and the second is a non-starter. <br />“…but we maybe the first species to wipe ourselves out.”<br />No. Not a chance. We can make life uncomfortable for ourselves, but we CANNOT wipe ourselves out. That’s not just my opinion, by the way—see Ward’s “Future Evolution” for a detailed discussion of it (Ward believes AGW is a catastrophe, by the way). Even an all-out nuclear war couldn’t wipe out our species. It’d reduce us to a few scattered outposts, but we’d survive. <br />Dinwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06138006602385020048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-44430046631246704932019-12-17T02:15:19.535+13:002019-12-17T02:15:19.535+13:00Re. Politicians lie. Much too much and even when t...Re. Politicians lie. Much too much and even when they don't they twist things to misinterpret and stifle the messages that scientists like Dinwar are trying to convey.<br /> What temperature? Great question, one you (Dinwar) would have more authority on. From an anthropic principle i would say a temperature the current life systems can thrive in. The average now is about 14-15C while in the end of Paleocene period it was 24C when the sea level was significantly higher would definitely flood my apartment.<br /> There are only 5 or 6 communist regimes left so i guess that you are referring to china. With china's 18% of the worlds population emitting 27% of the Human co2 emissions, you are right to suggest that the Paris agreement was too lenient towards them. On the other hand if you take the other top 2 economies, USA and EU you have 11% of the world yet a disproportionate 24% of the worlds emissions.<br /> Government Control is a start but not a great one but I feel you are too pessimistic on chances of a successful solution. The eu is managing to reduce its emissions significantly but not by policies alone. Education and Consumer choice are probably the more powerful might especially backed up by educated scientific opinion over current populism.<br /> Dinwar is spot on that climate is changing and that is what it does. Life has to evolve and adapt and humans will not be the last species of primate but we maybe the first species to wipe ourselves out.<br />Hopefully not but nobody can deny we have means. <br />This article points out there are 50+ years of concerns over the climate and only now capitalist economic systems have begun to see there may be an issue to address. Some would say, like Greta Thunberg (who irritates me and makes me change the channel) that it is too late but given the incentive humans can achieve amazing things <br /> philip colinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-81650062637939583222019-12-14T03:33:24.886+13:002019-12-14T03:33:24.886+13:00Climate is changing. Water is also wet, fire hot, ...Climate is changing. Water is also wet, fire hot, and politicians lie. It's what climate DOES. (FYI, I studied paleoclimatology and am a paleontologist. I'm one of those scientists you praised.) <br /><br />Question: What temperature should the world be? And how did you arrive at that number? <br /><br />The anti-capitalism aspect is the fact that every single proposed "solution" to climate change involves more government control and less freedom for the masses, while having precisely zero chance of success. It's the fact that openly Communist regimes are given free passes, while capitalist countries are expected to shut down our economies. Look at the attacks against nuclear power, a power source I'd advocate for regardless of whether CO2 was causing problems! <br /><br />Science is, as you say, neutral; it merely states facts. Climate Change is no longer a scientific concept, however, but a political one. Dinwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06138006602385020048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70393952529860335792019-12-12T21:36:28.750+13:002019-12-12T21:36:28.750+13:00Science is systematic discovery of knowledge throu...Science is systematic discovery of knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. The press will always pick up on the more extreme predictions but just because of that you cannot assume it is all flawed. Al Gore's "ice free Arctic by 2013" was wrong but the Arctic and glaciers are melting. All that I can see is that you have shown there has been concerns about the climate for over 50 years and nothing has been done about it. It is not anti capitalism and pro socialism it is science. Brilliant hard working scientists dedicate decades of work which is peer reviewed and open for all to scrutinize by all and the general consensus is Climate Change is happening. If you can disprove this you will win a Nobel Prize and make the majority of people very happy. philip colinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-350486749521838282019-10-01T06:22:16.335+13:002019-10-01T06:22:16.335+13:00Every so often an entire profession wastes itself....Every so often an entire profession wastes itself. Lawyers from Shakespeares time,;Politicians forever; Now climate Scientists, overreaching in a way to all scientists. My next pick the Medical profession, who are right now tring their best to lose previous reputation. paul scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15675247055484136242noreply@blogger.com