We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Less gullible. Makes sense to me. The people who preach to me about it know nothing. People who have studied the sciences at higher levels know that most scientific knowledge is never settled. Science is about theories, mostly, tested by observation, and eventually replaced by new theories and new information.
Climate science, in my view, is in its infancy, is overfunded compared with more compelling areas, and will ultimately turn out to be largely irrelevant except to those who study it - and to paleontologists.
As regular readers know, we are skeptical but have some hope that some global warming is happening. Gaia would like it. The next ice age would be quite unpleasant.
I'm in total agreement, BD. Since the earth is a living organism, on which we living organisms live, there is nothing surprising about the fact that, as Jules Crittenden memorably said, "sometimes the earth gets warmer, and sometimes it gets colder, and nobody quite knows why." We just know that it's a complicated interaction between a number of complicated factors. What annoys me most about the global warmenists is that they don't know much world history or science and yet they are impelled to try to scare us all to death. And, as is now emerging in captured emails, the so-called scientists have diddled the data to make it support what they think they know. Personally, I think global warmenism is the biggest sucker con since Piltdown Man. These environmentalist gurus want to feel good about themselves so they can brag how broadminded and concerned they are.
You might enjoy Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer's opening statement before Congress back in 2009. His contention is that we have a CO2 famine, both historically and productively. A little jibe at the warmists but true. The entire plant kingdom would love more CO2, would require less water thus expand in drier areas, and would reward us with their bounty.
“I keep hearing about the ‘pollutant CO2,’ or about ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ with CO2, or about minimizing our ‘carbon footprint.’ This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: ‘But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’ CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”
Well, Don't know much about a science book... ... or slide rules.
Count me as one of the skeptics. Phud in bio-organic chemistry, the pinnacle of my career (this is for you Bird Dog) an invited seminar at Kenyon College! and a climate skeptic and CO2 burner to boot! I played the polished cup begging routine for years that passes for research grantsmanship, until I got tired of it, sold my soul to the devil and now am an evil capitalist with my own (very) small business, and no more tenure.
If a crisis can be manufactured, it pretty much guarantees a nice flow of grant money and wonderful carbon rich meetings in Pago Pago or anywhere you have to fly over lots of water to get to. And the prestige!!! Aaah, something to die for! The climate science game smells like one of those schemes, and a very lucrative one at that.
An interesting story about the ozone scare that asthmatics are paying out the nose for now. Chlorofluorocarbons were identified as the big baddies for killing ozone, sending us all to an early death due to being fried by UV, all because of freons.
A Nobel prize in chemistry, and bucket loads of grant money ensued for the lucky chemist that published his theoretical paper. Turns out that when reaction rates were actually measured a number of years after the prize, and gazillions in grant money, the reaction rate was several hundred times slower than predicted, and not a threat to ozone at all. But freons are still banned and it is getting worse. Freon based asthma inhalers from the Walmart that were $4.00 were banned and the replacements went to about $50 currently. They of course do not work as well.
Welcome to climate science. If you can breathe.
I saw a number of criticisms of the Rowland and Molina theory of CFCs depleting the ozone because the proposed chemical reaction had not been observed occuring in the atmosphere and had not been produced in the laboratory. The fact that Roland showed the chemical reaction was feasible didn't prove that it actually occured. Dr. Edward Krug criticized the theory and called it junk chemistry. All the criticism was ignored and CFCs were banned.