In reference to these articles:
"Hurricanes and Human Choice" by Roger Pielke, The Wall Street Journal
"It's Global Warming, Stupid" by Paul M. Barrett, Bloomberg Businessweek.
The bloomberg author is the typically clueless writer however - you can't buy everything you want. Do you want economic growth which might sustain the welfare state that so many folks feel is SO essential to civilization and "democracy"? Or, do you want to sacrifice economic growth and the welfare/entitlement state in order to reduce "carbon emissions", if you can? Keeping in mind that there's little prospect for "green" energy sources to exceed 4% of production in the near term, you can forget that option. And keeping in mind that efficiency increases consumption (http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/31/the-paradox-of-energy-efficiency) - you could sum up the bloomberg article as:
"I'm really scared."
"I have no actionable ideas."
"I don't think we need scientific proof that the sky is falling before we completely eliminate prosperity to stop it from falling"
"Even if my facts are dead wrong about the number and severity of storms, the Governor of New York agrees that this is really man made climate change."
And, "I'm so scientifically illiterate, people who aren't are really sticks in the mud for my climate change anxiety."
Frankly, the Bloomberg article doesn't seem as though it was intended to be taken seriously. It was nothing more than red meat to throw to the "sky is falling" crowd because they seem to like to fret about such things.
The best I can tell:
-AGW may or may not be true but most scientists studying the issue are no closer to knowing the answer than they were ten years ago
-Folks are so fragmented and compartmentalized in their thinking that they cannot integrate how one part of their Massive State Intervention plans will affect the others (economic growth v. entitlement state v. economic arrest to reduce carbon emissions
-The really obvious fact = that reducing econ activity to reduce emissions will hurt the poor most of all - is not something they discuss openly and is in direct contradiction to what the profess to be concerned with
-If they are still dreaming that politicians will do anything smart to influence carbon emissions, they are delusional
-If they think nations will cooperate on carbon emissions on any basis other than to give some nations an advantage over others, they are delusional
-The likelihood that a nincompoop President is going to influence other nations towards deliberately restricting economic growth when the world is already eye ball to eye ball with not enough growth is delusional
If somehow the government takes control of carbon emissions, we'll wish we could have our economy back and ten Sandys would seem like a bargain.
Al Gore and the Chicken Littles - the fairy tale is almost as amusing now as was the original.
Comment #10 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 074" 200 48 yoa at November 7, 2012 7:51 PM
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/008648.html
"Hurricanes and Human Choice" by Roger Pielke, The Wall Street Journal
"It's Global Warming, Stupid" by Paul M. Barrett, Bloomberg Businessweek.
The bloomberg author is the typically clueless writer however - you can't buy everything you want. Do you want economic growth which might sustain the welfare state that so many folks feel is SO essential to civilization and "democracy"? Or, do you want to sacrifice economic growth and the welfare/entitlement state in order to reduce "carbon emissions", if you can? Keeping in mind that there's little prospect for "green" energy sources to exceed 4% of production in the near term, you can forget that option. And keeping in mind that efficiency increases consumption (http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/31/the-paradox-of-energy-efficiency) - you could sum up the bloomberg article as:
"I'm really scared."
"I have no actionable ideas."
"I don't think we need scientific proof that the sky is falling before we completely eliminate prosperity to stop it from falling"
"Even if my facts are dead wrong about the number and severity of storms, the Governor of New York agrees that this is really man made climate change."
And, "I'm so scientifically illiterate, people who aren't are really sticks in the mud for my climate change anxiety."
Frankly, the Bloomberg article doesn't seem as though it was intended to be taken seriously. It was nothing more than red meat to throw to the "sky is falling" crowd because they seem to like to fret about such things.
The best I can tell:
-AGW may or may not be true but most scientists studying the issue are no closer to knowing the answer than they were ten years ago
-Folks are so fragmented and compartmentalized in their thinking that they cannot integrate how one part of their Massive State Intervention plans will affect the others (economic growth v. entitlement state v. economic arrest to reduce carbon emissions
-The really obvious fact = that reducing econ activity to reduce emissions will hurt the poor most of all - is not something they discuss openly and is in direct contradiction to what the profess to be concerned with
-If they are still dreaming that politicians will do anything smart to influence carbon emissions, they are delusional
-If they think nations will cooperate on carbon emissions on any basis other than to give some nations an advantage over others, they are delusional
-The likelihood that a nincompoop President is going to influence other nations towards deliberately restricting economic growth when the world is already eye ball to eye ball with not enough growth is delusional
If somehow the government takes control of carbon emissions, we'll wish we could have our economy back and ten Sandys would seem like a bargain.
Al Gore and the Chicken Littles - the fairy tale is almost as amusing now as was the original.
Comment #10 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 074" 200 48 yoa at November 7, 2012 7:51 PM
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/008648.html
No comments:
Post a Comment