Mike J. gets a no-prize that'll throw rocks at the kids on his lawn for bringing us at least one watermelon willing to take the gloves off. It's quite nice to see the true core of progressive environmentalism laid out so plainly. These are the policies most seem to really want. They are why I have never believed a darned thing the environmentalist movement says.
One of the risks that comes with actual freedom is that people can do dumbass things to themselves and others. Just because there's a risk doesn't mean you go away from freedom. If you can't prove your point well enough to get people to change, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Don't get me wrong - I try to make the world a better place because I like to get out in nature. Amber and I use CF bulbs because they last longer. We recycle. We try to use a minimum of everything simply so we don't overconsume. Those all make financial sense and are good things.
However, if your entire argument is "at some nebulous point in the future the climate might shift unless you change your actions today" coupled with a "we might've already crossed the point of no return" AND said changes your asking basically boil down to returning to a stone age lifestyle, guess what? You're trying to sell herpes to nuns. Ain't gonna work.
Posted by: Ron ap Rhys on March 31, 2010 11:38 AMNot to mention it doesn't take a Ph.D. in climatology to realize that long-term iterative computer models are bunk... just a basic understanding of what "chaos theory" really is. Just because the computer said that adding a fraction of a percentage point of CO2 to the atmosphere will make the global temperature imitate the Lorentz Attractor doesn't mean it will actually do the same in real life.
My issue here is that while the models do account for all the measured variables (or, more accurately, all the measured variables that the researcher wants to include), they aren't accurately predictive. If I put together a financial analysis that ties to historical data but when we use it as a predictor it's consistently wrong that means my model is wrong - no matter how much I want it to be right. That could be because I've not accounted for something in the past, I'm interpreting the data wrong, etc.
The history is accurate, more or less. I don't doubt that we're warmer or that we've got more CO2 in the air than we've had in quite some time. What bothers me is that the models can't accurately predict what's going to happen so I simply can't say that whatever action I'm taking (or being asked to take) will change a damn thing.
Posted by: Ron ap Rhys on April 1, 2010 02:40 PM