Wise Men Or Blind Mice?
Today I want to say a few things about the world's three great religions - Christianity, Warmalarmism, and Muslamism which I mention in that order because while I don't respect the tenets of any of them, Christians only try to advance their beliefs by being annoying, while Warmalarmists want to tax and control people, and Muslamists will just kill you if you don't like what they're selling.
Also, compared to the other two, Christianity is rarely in the news, and I'm sure you agree that when it comes to religion, no news is good news?!?
Plus, when there is news, Christians are usually only a little wacky, WAs are insane, and Mussies are, more often than not, downright scary (for lack of a scarier term).
Although Pope Benedict, better known as "Eggs," did recently say that combating warming was a "moral imperative," which, of course, raises the question, Don't you have other matters of faith to deal with, pops? Like... the news of six nuns who have been excommunicated (thrown out, not separated from their heads) from the Catholic Church because they refused to give up their membership in a Canadian group - The Community of the Lady of All Nations, aka, the Army of Mary, whose founder claims to be possessed by the Virgin Mary herself.
And who can blame the nuns, since the Catholic doctrine behind all the Church's teachings is: "Better safe than sorry?"
The nuns aren't Canadian though. In fact, nuns are to Canada about like gays are to Iran. No, our ex-nuns are from the Good Shepherd Monastery of Our Lady of Charity and Refuge in... Hot Springs, Ark. - Ark the herald angels sang, eh?
And get this, the six aren't moving out of their convent since they won it, which makes one wonder what will be the Church's equivalent of the Waco siege?
82-year-old ex-nun, Sister Mary Theresa Dionne, one of the nuns excommunicated, said:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their (sic) eyes before it is too late."
Remember, better safe than sorry.
A spokesman for the Army of Mary, Father Eric Roy, said Mary impersonator Marie Paule Giguere has not claimed to be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary. He said the 86-year-old Quebec woman "receives graces" and that "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Turning to the Warmalarmists, a bunch of Canadian scientists (if that's not a contradiction in terms) took a trip up north (and I'm talkin' damn north, as compared to what Americans think of as "north") and were stunned... STUNNED, by the amount of melting they saw. No mention was made of whether the trip was paid for out of the hundred million or so dollars the Canadian government gave the group or whether it's a separate chargeable expense.
And Quebec has imposed the first "carbon tax," to, as the news dispatch put it, "fund the province's plans to reduce emissions."
Why I'll bet, if you're a Warmalarmist, you happier than a polar bear in the Arctic used to be before all the melting, am I right?
Well, there's another article which you most likely missed because it didn't make Reuters or the AP until today. It's about sugar cane cutters (SCCs) in Brazil. That report talks about the backbreaking work, low pay, and the large uptick in serious cane related diseases the Brazilian laborers have to contend with.
But if ethanol saves the life of one polar bear, it's all worth it, and those Canadian scientists have asked the bears to document any perceived improvements in their living conditions that result from the Quebec tax. Quebecers will no doubt do the same, and my bet is that the bears respond first.
And finally, we turn to news from the Wonderful World of Islam. Manny and the Mullahs over in Iran have labeled the CIA a "terrorist organization," which proves how little they know about America or they would have given that label to the IRS.
Meanwhile, a New York Congressman says there are too many mosques in America which may be an all-time understatement since one mosque could easily be considered too many, and two an epidemic.
Which reminds me, a new TV series premiered last night which features a Muslim exchange student from Pakistan, and while the American family expressed initial consternation, it's amazing how funny and down-to-Earth regular Muslims are. No doubt future episodes will also show how much wiser he is than the average American.
Finally, there's the story of the Malaysian Muslim astronaut which is so amazing that it demands it's own space, ha ha... but trust me, this one is a blast.
Comments
First of all, I am no tree hugger. I'm aware that species extinction, no matter how cute the animal, is unavoidable, as 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct, 98.999999% of those having disappeared before us evil humans even began to poke things with sticks, much less hunt baby seals and make things a little uncomfortable for a mammal with a metabolism and size that is completely out of sync with it's environment and only exists because it has no natural predators. All of nature lives on a knife's edge, and it's silly to think we should stifle human development for fear of causing the extinction of furry creatures.
With cloning, we can revive any species that currently lives in the very near future, so when the spaceships come, we can repopulate the earth with all the cute fuzzies we want and make the entire rock a park so far as I'm concerned.
My worry isn't about the temperature or sea levels either. I agree that people act like there's going to be one big wave that wipes out the coastal cities and renders hundreds of millions of people homeless in April 2025. If sea levels do rise, it will be gradual. People can move. Finding it's self a coastal city with beach front property would be a boon for Las Vegas.
All that aside, there is a reason to be concerned, and not so cynical towards the claims of the vast majority of climatologists. If what they say is true, and it's not as a big an "if" as you make it out to be, then we are indeed in serious trouble. By "we" I do not mean you or I, or our kids, or even grandchildren. I mean the race in general.
Here's what they are telling us; There is about a 50% chance, given our current rate and future predictions for carbon emissions, that we will reach a "tipping point" where carbon levels in the atmosphere will become so high that it becomes a self sustained feedback loop, causing temperatures to spiral out of control to unlivable levels. No it won't happen next week, and yes we could easily deal with increases in temperature that make Des Moines look like Death Valley. It wouldn't be fun, but we could survive it, probably.
What climatologists worry about is turning the planet into Venus over hundreds of years, not turning Buffalo into Miami in 50.
Stephen Hawking estimates that at our current growth rate, regardless of the greenhouse effect, we'll be standing shoulder to shoulder and the earth will be glowing red hot just from our use of electricity in no later than 1000 years, more like 600.
It's obvious that we're going to have to get off this rock before it kills us. There is no question that there will be some extinction event at some point in the planet's future. It's not a question of if, but when. It could just as easily be a stellar object, massive tectonic shift, a virus or hundreds of other possibilities, but one way or another, we're going to have to get the hell out "before the whole sh*&house goes up in flames", to quote the late great Jim Morrison.
While global warming is not the most likely potential cause for our demise, it is foolish to not consider it along with everything else. We're in a race to advance our technology to the degree that we become a space faring, planet independent species. If we lose this race, we're gone.
At this point, we have no idea when or how the cosmos will take it's best shot at us, but we can make some educated guesses and start preparing. It makes sense to consider global warming to be one of the monsters that wait in the dark for us. It doesn't make sense to mock the scientific community and dismiss what they have to say simply because we're afraid of a little inconvenience in our lives.
Your assumption that taking moderate preventative measures that could have a huge payoff in 100 years is bound to do nothing but suppress the natural development of society is just as unfounded as the alarmist who say we're all doomed if we don't stop the cows from farting and permanently park our cars.
It's purely prudent to examine the issue and try to come up with some course of action that reduces our risk and gives us the best chance at reaching technological escape velocity, as I like to call it. This isn't alarmism. Ed Begley Jr and his bike aside, it's just plain common sense.
Will we beat the clock? Who knows. Should we be making our best effort to not snuff ourselves out before we get there? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Erik,
If I gave the impression that I didn't approve of even modest steps to stem emissions, I'm sorry I gave that impression. I lived in LA for a long time, and I know well how important it is to keep the atmosphere as free of man-made pollutants as possible.
That said, I can't agree with a lot of what you said because you seem resigned to a worst case scenario.
Don't get me wrong, I have no faith in man as evidenced by this warming nonsense itself. But note that I am not saying you're nonsensical, I'm saying that you're presuming something terrible will happen when there is absolutely no evidence - and the opinion of scientists is no better than anyone else's.
See, you know all about the coldalarmists of the seventies, but you may not know or remember there was an idiot back then who sounded very believable who was saying that we'd be overrun with people by now and completely out of food and resources.
In addition, we were far more threatened then with immediate eradication by nuclear weapons than we will likely ever be from any kind of warming.
Furthermore, a lot of the scare of warming assumes that technology will remain pretty much where it is, and in fact, people just a century ago could never have envisioned nuclear weapons, computers, satellites, the Internet, or even microwave ovens. So just imagine what your doomsday year of 3007 might be like...
Except you can't. You can't even begin to imagine what we'll have available. And if you showed a microwave to a guy from 1907, he might just drop dead from amazement.
Not only that, there are other things that loom that are bigger threats than imagined catastrophic warming - such as an errant asteroid. But take heart, I just read today that we can potentially manage that with with 5000 strategically placed space mirrors. I think it will be like a funhouse where the asteroid sees itself but can't tell which is the real image so it goes another direction.
But seriously, folk, Don't overlook the supervolcano. No, not a regular volcano, I'm talkin' the big one that shrouds us in dust and causes global winter - the natural way, so who could complain?
In other words, global warming is a manufactured frenzy, just as the population bomb was back when. It can be handled calmly in due and natural course, and I am not willing to penalize people now because of some collective whim, which is, itself, outrageous.
Things change - mankind rolls with it. I not only will not listen to the frantic nuts who hide behind degrees, I'm in favor of killing them. And as Greg Gutfeld says, if you disagree with me, you're worse than Hitler... or at least they are.
That's right. warmalarmists are worse than Hitler.
Best,
Ted
The people of any religion should not be directly linked to the truth or the condition of that given religion. We are only human. For instance, if you are christian, then you worship jesus. It does not mean we are jesus. That is the point, we recognize that he was a higher being than ourselves. You can't take any one christisn, or any group of christians for that matter, and label the religion based on their actions. And further more. Catholics are a single branch of christianity. Baptists, mormons, methodist and prespaterians, while they all have the same basic beliefs. Differ heavily in a lot of things. It's always the catholics you hear abnout it the news. In my opinion, they are the furthest thing from the true idea of what christianity is. What i'm saying is that humans are not perfect. But the god we worship is. So don't judge off of our actions. For we are indeed, only christians.
And here's rub number 1. I don't believe I am presuming that something terrible is going to happen, I'm saying it's possible. There's a big difference. Your statement that scientists opinions are no better than anybody else's is screaming at me for a response. Not for nothing, this is a common argument used by evolution deniers.
When the scientific community reaches a consensus, as it has on man made global warming, there is every reason to take what they are saying very seriously. It doesn't mean that they are 100% guaranteed to be right in their theory. We all know that scientists can be wrong, and very often are, so let's not bring up the thousands of examples where individual scientists, or even the entire scientific establishment has been soundly proven to be wrong about some particular theory or idea.
We do however, have good reason to believe and trust in a scientific consensus as it is based on decades of painstaking research done by hundreds of brilliant minds who seek and evaluate evidence in favor or against these ideas. This is how the scientific method works. Theories come and go, some right and some wrong, but overall, in the big picture so to speak, they ultimately get it right, as evidenced by your laundry list of modern technological marvels. The casual dismissal of a scientific consensus by anyone other than an equal peer and expert on the subject is nonsensical in light of the contribution that science has made to the advancement of mankind.
Let me head off the expected response that you have read the literature and done your homework. Unless you research global warming for a living and have peer reviewed, published works on the subject, then the thousands of scientists who do have you trumped. The very few scientists who currently disagree with the findings of the vast majority not withstanding, I'm with the consensus every time.
I don't mean this to belittle your opinion, and I hope it doesn't come off this way. I'm simply saying that we must defer to experts in most cases like this. Dismissal of science gets my panties in a bunch, so don't take it personally.
In any event, I don't think the validity of scientific claims is really at the heart of our debate here anyway.
You seem to think that an over reaction to the hype could cause more harm than good, a cure might be worse than the disease type of perspective, if I'm understanding you correctly. While I don't completely disagree, I think you're missing an obvious point here.
I do think we should be careful not to stifle economic growth in countries that obviously need their industrial and technological revolutions to take place. I also think that placing the brunt of the responsibility for change on individuals is silly. I'm not going to stop watching my plasma TV or start riding my bike to work any time soon, and I suspect most people who enjoy the conveniences of modern technology would agree with me, in private at least.
That being said, it doesn't follow that placing caps on emissions, or implementing carbon trading, investing in green technologies or making an overall effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is in and of it's self a bad thing.
We can certainly react to the threat of global warming without over reacting. The benefits of the research into green technologies could be well worth the effort, for us and for developing countries.
To me, a future in which the developed world no longer has the need to interfere with, oppress or otherwise victimize smaller countries in order to procure their natural resources to meet our huge energy demands is a good one. Every building should have solar panels on the roof, our beaches should be lined with hydroelectric and desalinization plants and our large bodies of water littered with wind farms.
Killing their democratically elected leaders who refuse us unfettered access to their oil fields is penalizing undeveloped countries, investing in green energy and finding a way to stop burning things to make our cars and electronics go is not. I'd much rather see my tax dollars go into massive research of alternative energy than into another invasion of a foreign country for their oil.
By the way, I'm with you on the ethanol issue. There is no free lunch, if you plan to burn something for energy, you will have emissions, period. It's not the answer, no matter how many corn and sugar cane farmers and their lobbyists claim otherwise.
Erik,
I found your response to be mostly troubling because you appear to have taken a rather liberal approach to the argument - some facts coupled with and shrouded in hope and idealism... and irrational fear. So I want to be clear that despite my reaction, I've found this exchange to be one of the more stimulating I've had in years, and I can see that you know your subject. I just wish you could realize the point at which your command of the facts gives way to unsupportable conclusions which you label as "possible," but which (it seems clear enough) you regard as inevitable.
I also regret that we can't have this argument face to face as writing it takes much longer and precludes me from being both as detailed and as loud as I'd like to be. That said, I best get started.
And I want to start with another apology for any instances where I have or might put words in your mouth. My defense is that I'm used to dealing with idiots (of whom you are clearly not one), and I often have to try to make sense of what they say - because they can't do it themselves.
Now, if I recall, this is our second disagreement, the other having taken place on your blog and having to do with taxes (I think you were ranting about "tax the rich"). Unfortunately, I didn't remember to return for a follow-up, so I apologize for that as well, and welcome a renewal of that argument should you be so inclined.
Anyway, there was a headline on Drudge yesterday:
"Global warming havoc on fashion industry: 'No strong difference between summer and winter any more'... "
I didn't read the article, but when I saw the headline, I thought, "Isn't that GLORIOUS!?!"
Because it doesn't matter how the Earth might be warming, what's great is that it is - if it is. I mean I hope this isn't a tease.
I've read your last comment very carefully, and I share some of your idealism, but it's tempered by cynicism, and I find there is no reason to put trust in science the way you appear to do.
And anything that involves more government control goes way beyond cynicism for me and into the realm of paranoia - the justified kind, if for no other reason than once a government program starts, it never stops. Once something has been outlawed, it stays outlawed. I don't mind if individuals find it in their best interests, economically and otherwise, to go green, but a mandate better involve an immediate threat - and warming is not one.
And there is no scientific consensus that there is despite your claim.
Which brings me to an irrelevant aside that you seem to think was important:
"Your statement that scientists opinions are no better than anybody else's... a common argument used by evolution deniers."
Yeah, so? Your reverence for scientific opinion seems to indicate that you occupy a position related to the field and that has prompted the above irrational umbrage.
The creation-evolution argument hasn't any relevance here, though it's interesting that there's the same sort of "consensus" among scientists about evolution that there is about warming, but evolution as some would like it to be understood has not been proved either.
Granted species adapt, but there has not been a direct link that shows one species evolving into another. Not to mention that there could easily be both creation and evolution...
Panspermia is the most likely explanation, in any event.
And if there was a consensus on warming, I'd reject it summarily based on the current level of knowledge and technology and failed modeling, not to mention the more cynical aspects of bias, career considerations, and the small matter of funding - who gets what from where.
And that last bit is the ugliest part.
And even without the ugliness, so many times science has been flat-out wrong, and not just a little bit, but 180 degrees wrong. Things we were told were good for us turned out to be bad - even fatal... food, drugs, etc... not to mention the conflict between what is unknown about what is good or bad - and now the climate?
Right now in history, the entire human race is nothing more than Guinea Pigs, and we're being treated that way. Even if government and science is wholly benevolent in motives and actions, that benevolence will fall on future generations. We're expendable. More precisely, our lives are, and I mean that literally. Mostly that just involves our comfort and happiness, but where the ultimate price is required, it is paid without our consent. We don't see a lot of it because it usually happens in out-of-the-way countries and regions, but when it happens here, paying damages is cheaper and easier, you know, for the good of mankind.
I believe I've mentioned a plowing method that is being imposed on Indians because we don't want them to use modern equipment - it "pollutes." So plowing remains backbreaking work and less productive, but the powers-that-be have decided, and we simply won't sell India the good stuff.
Now let me address some of your other specific quotes.
"I don't believe I am presuming that something terrible is going to happen, I'm saying it's possible."
That's the same reasoning, however, that brought us seatbelt laws (which are more justifiable), and even if that doesn't sway you, there are, as I said, other things that are terrible that are more possible, and even likely, and we don't demand that people move away from, say, hurricane prone areas.
Your "possible," to justify the kind of hysteria alarmists are generating, must be "probable." And that's where nothing points to that - nothing. Not the models which are imprecise, not the facts (what little there are), and not the technology curve which will adapt slowly as needed. And there is simply no reason that the net effect of global warming can't be GREAT!.
The warming argument would carry more weight if we were warmer that we've ever been. Then I might be willing to take a look at measures that would result in a soft landing.
"When the scientific community reaches a consensus, as it has on man made global warming, there is every reason to take what they are saying very seriously. It doesn't mean that they are 100% guaranteed to be right in their theory."
There is no consensus on warming, and if there were, there is every reason to take it -advisedly- . I know the sci-guys are always right in disaster movies, but that has not translated into real life.
"The casual dismissal of a scientific consensus by anyone other than an equal peer and expert on the subject is nonsensical."
Piffle. The next thing, you'll be saying that doctors know more that their patients.
OK, I agree they know more... but that doesn't stop the majority from being quackish.
"Unless you research global warming for a living and have peer reviewed, published works on the subject, then the thousands of scientists who do have you trumped."
Well, I'll see that and raise you this: anyone who researches global warming for a living is more worthless than an accountant and needs to find another line of work - for the good of humanity.
"The very few scientists who currently disagree with the findings"
That's an outrageous comment, if you'll pardon my expression of emotion. Even if it were true that only a few scientists disagreed, it goes beyond numbers and implies that those who dare to differ are an incompetent fringe when you know that's anything but true. Not only that, history is replete with examples of groups (as small as one person) being right, and I need go no further back than to the fellow who recently proved NASA's warmest year rankings to be wrong.
"I'm simply saying that we must defer to experts in most cases like this"
No, and in fact, we must NOT. At least until they can demonstrate that what they are saying has a very high probability of being true and that the cumulative result will be severely negative.
Here's your biggest problem. My wife is a chemist so I put the question to her, "Can you tell me a prediction scientists have made that's come true?"
Wife: "Outside of science fiction movies?"
Me: (Laughter)
Wife: "Scientists don't make predictions, they predict outcomes based on a certain set of known facts."
Me: "So on global warming?"
Wife: "Not enough facts and too many variables."
So much for your scientists' predictions, then, Erik, but then we turned to the scientific method...
Wife: "That's a series of steps that lead to correct conclusions."
Me: "I know, so would you say that the scientific method guarantees conclusions - certifies then to be correct?"
Wife: (Fumbling for words) "The scientific method is about order and discipline, and only takes accepted facts and attempts to arrive at a believed or probable or likely outcome... but there are no guarantees."
Me: "Exactly!"
And from there, Erik, you lapse into idealism and hope and faith... and in government, no less, and the worst possible thing is your advocacy of carbon trading, which is nothing more than an invitation to corruption, a grand and global oil-for-food program that will never be curtailed, and the results and repercussions will reverberate right down to the individual to a far greater degree than a seatbelt law.
The one area we agree on is the emission caps, but we're already doing that. And I think it's a crime that we don't have solar panels and wind turbines on every house here. And I would approve of government subsidies and tax credits to accomplish such things - except that there shouldn't be an income tax from which to gain such credits in the first place.
But I don't want tax dollars funding massive research - that's what brought us the global warming scam in the first place. Private industry will do whatever is necessary with some government prodding and cooperation.
Lastly, I've curious as to what you meant by this:
"Killing their democratically elected leaders who refuse us unfettered access to their oil fields "
I may be a little fuzzy on oily history, but I don't recall anyone ever doing that? I mean, I have an idea of what you might have meant, but that would make you a bit kooky, so I am summarily rejecting that possibility as well.
----------------
Amazingly (at least to me), I came across the following article titled INCONVENIENT TRUTHS: SUBSIDIES AND SPEECHES AREN'T SAVING THE EARTH just as I was ready to post this. Here's the salient quote:
"Voters who go to the polls inspired by dreamy visions of what your country can do for you are like slot machine players who have been losing all night but are convinced that with one last pull, everything is suddenly going to go right. If we could so much as trust government to deliver a letter, there would be no need for FedEx..."
Let me answer your question in regard to my source for the accusation that our government has killed and deposed democratically elected leaders of foreign countries who have refused unfettered access to their oil, or other natural and strategically valuable resources. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins.
With that out of the way, it seems to me that we're disagreeing on three different fronts here, and I'd like to clarify them as I see it and tackle each individually if at all possible.
1. The net effect that science has had on modern society, and to what degree that effect has been a positive or negative one and more importantly, to what degree science should inform our public policy.
2. Whether there actually is a scientific consensus on man made global warming.
3. Whether government is good or bad, again, net effect, or in other words, a libertarian ideology vs a liberal one.
It may seem that our disagreement is really about what we should do about global warming, but I think we disagree on that only because we disagree on the above three issues. If I found myself agreeing with you on these things, then I couldn't possibly disagree with your stance on what action should be taken.
Whether we agree on 2 or not means nothing if we don't agree on 1. From what I can tell, you dismiss a consensus as having any gravitas, so why then, do you go on to deny that there is a consensus, if a consensus means nothing? That's a rhetorical question.
In any event, I don't think debating issue 2 is worth while so long as we disagree on 1, so I'm not going to even go there until we've hashed something out on 1.
So in debating issue 1, I only need point to the ever increasing human lifespan in developed countries as my proof that in general, the net effect of scientific inquiry on the modern world is positive. When I say, in general, I mean exactly that, in general.
It's obvious that it's a bumpy ride. If you were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the end of WWII, then you would probably argue that modern science has had a pretty damned negative effect on your life. That's not what I'm talking about, and I think you know that I understand the difference between short term unintended consequences and the long term big picture.
I would never disagree with you that science has been wrong and will be wrong. You are right however to notice that I do have a deep seeded faith that ultimately, science (and the technology that it results in) is the key to mankind reaching it's full potential, now and in the future.
Call that idealism or misplaced hope if you must, but I personally feel lucky to be alive during this massive explosion of human development through the understanding of our natural universe.
I recognize fully that science is a double edged sword. Great harm has been done in the name of scientific inquiry, even under the auspices of a consensus, of this there can be no doubt.
But, and it's a big but, everything about our modern lifestyles, all the comforts, all the entertainment, everything we cherish as Americans can be attributed to scientific inquiry or can be undoubtedly be shown to have benefited greatly from it.
Take even the simple act of procreating for instance. We now have advanced prenatal care, ensuring that our children are by and large born more healthy with a much greater chance of survival.
Got the flue? 200 years ago, before major advances in science like the germ theory of disease, there was a very good chance you wouldn't have survived it. You were guaranteed to be dead if you were unlucky enough to get pneumonia.
There is nothing that you do in your daily life that isn't enhanced in some way by science and technology, barring of course the possibility that you are Amish or living off the land like some Grizzly Adams hermit.
So really, let's get over the idea that science is bad, or that it can't be trusted. When I say I trust science, I only mean that given two choices for a course of action, one informed by scientific inquiry and one picked out of thin air or based solely on a political ideology or bias, I'm going with the former. It's a practical approach to playing the odds, that's all.
So that's all I have to say about 1, and I'm holding off on 2 for a while, and 3, well, I don't have the energy for 3 and this is already too long. I'll get back to 3 tomorrow night, but suffice it to say that I am a liberal, on most issues, though I think you'd be surprised where I depart from the ideology, so hold off on any preconceptions you might hold about me given that knowledge.
Regarding your desire to debate this face to face, entirely possible if you have a webcam and good broadband connection. Check out www.stickam.com. I'm sure we could agree to a time that works for both of us to hash this out real time.
Oh, and one last thing, if indeed we did ever debate taxes, it wasn't on my blog and I do not recall it. I'm sure it will come up during any discussion about issue 3 though!
Erik,
Not only do I not have a webcam and a broadband connection, I don't even have a face!
But seriously, I probably have you confused with someone else on the taxes thing, and it wasn't an argument in any case. Someone posted something about the folly of taxing the rich, and I responded that it was anything but folly. And not only do I say that as a conservative, I say that as a true conservative. But I never returned to read a response.
Anyway, I really do think it would be an enjoyable experience to discuss many issues with you, and hopefully we'll get to do that over time.
But now to the issue at hand - one in which we may be arguing past each other, so I will try to concisely state my points after dealing with your point 1 in which you are putting the scientist before the horse in my opinion.
Yes, it is an inarguable truth that science has done more for the world than any other field, but as you have agreed, it has also done great harm - most usually unintentionally.
But science has not been the leader in progress, at least not any more than private industry and (sometimes) government. In other words, many of the things we have and the progress we've made is because someone had a vision and turned to science to create or enhance it.
Now when science itself makes predictions which it claims arise from a consensus, such consensus has to be virtually absolute. Even one man, an Einstein, for example, could single-handedly negate any consensus. And there may be many Einsteins who dispute global warming, but we don't know because they don't have a voice in an unwilling media, and the (undeniable) attempt, on the part of the UN, governments, the media, and the much of the beholden scientific community to stifle debate actually runs counter to the normal scientific approach.
OK, now here is the way I see it:
There is no (indisputable) evidence that warming is occurring and even less that it is in any way caused or contributed to by man if it is.
But if it is, and we won't know for (at least) decades, while it is rational to take steps to curb our pollution, it is not only irrational, it could be disruptive and harmful to current generations in terms of quality of life if we impose Orwellian controls. And as with seatbelts and then speed cams once this starts, no one knows where it will lead.
So it is best to tread softly and slowly and let the private sector do most of the work according to demand by citizens themselves - but even that can be irrational if an ill-informed citizenry acts in panic.
So the only justification for government interference is if it can be demonstrated that such interference is required because climate chaos is imminent. And that is exactly what alarmists are trying to convey.
But a rational person needs only to look around to see that destruction is not at hand. Yet I am reading column after column about the changes people notice in their environment and they chalk it up to runaway warming. I read a column last week by a guy who was panicked because he's saw too many birds in his area last winter.
But observation and coincidence is not evidence of causation.
So contrary to, or perhaps in addition to, your points, I think our argument is about time frames and rationality. I'm certainly looking at all the points being made (though I probably wouldn't be if there wasn't the hype and hysteria), and I'm certain that those scientists who refuse to sign on to the "consensus" are looking even harder.
I just don't want people to stop the backyard barbecues until we are damn sure it's necessary - and I'm a vegetarian!
But then I'm not as good a vegetarian as I am a conservative since I wouldn't mind if most species became extinct. Why don't people realize what a nuisance and hazard most animals are?
So why don't we start by eliminating animals, that would probably have a huge effect on CO2"?!?
And I know you see I'm joking...
But I'm not.
Btw, I too have faith in science to solve problems - eventually, but that can involve a lot of trial and error, and I don't want to bear the brunt of an error.
*which apparently doesn't cause global warming
Trust me, not all Malaysians are actually proud that we sent a doctor/part time model into space for that PR stunt. In today's papers, it stated that the others aboard the station were amazed, partly because he was so helpful towards the others aboard the station.
When you have nothing better to do up there, guess you'd just about do anything I guess. Even if it includes spending four hours working with a screwdriver...
Amazingly, he even brought food up there....
I have a story nearly written about all this, but it requires final editing, and I haven't been in the mood - for about a month.
But now something you said caught my attention, and I wondered...
"he even brought food up there"
Exactly how did you mean that?
But seriously...
"He said... “my heart stopped beating and my eyes stopped blinking.'"
I know you and I would agree that we wish more Muslims could have that experience!?!
"Dr Jamaluddin also spoke to flight engineer Yuri Malechencko, who said he enjoyed the Malaysian food that Dr Sheikh Muszaphar brought.
”I loved the banana roll and dried mango, the other food was a bit too spicy,” Malechencko said. "
It's a space station, not a freaking international food festival!
I know you and I would agree that we wish more Muslims could have that experience!?!
Just the ones with bombs, rifles, and burning effigies....although, in my latest entry I'd like to add some Malaysian religious leaders to that list as well.