I think it was Karl who recommended the documentary "Cool It" based on the book by Bjørn Lomborg. I can't recommend this movie enough. It's on netflix instant streaming and available for rental.
Finally a global warming "alarmist" who's not an alarmist. Finally a rational thinker who's not a "chicken-little" running around purporting all kinds of made-up consequences that aren't backed up by *anyone's* science.
Yes, he believes that it is man-caused, but doesn't believe the sky is falling or as Al Gore thinks, that we have only 10 years to avoid catastrophic consequences. This is a guy I would actually sit down and listen to, to gain his perspective on what evidence he sees that points to man. Then tell him it's bullshit. :-p (please, laugh at that!)
Please watch this movie with an open mind, no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Personally I don't believe in man made global warming. However all "solutions" to solve the problem have been glorified new taxes schemes.
The big one being pushed is the Carbon Credit tax. This same solution was tried in the early part of this century. It was then called Tobacco Allotments. One of the "great" ideas coming from the New Deal. This has taken nearly 70 years to get rid of, and now is money wasted on a dying product. This wonderful idea cost trillions of dollars promoting a product, that, since its inception, the government has spent trillions of dollars discouraging its use. Perfect Liberal logic.
We are approaching this like the two blind men and the elephant. One describe the animal as snake like when he touched its truck and the other as tree like when he touched it leg.
If you read a chemistry book, and compare the "Solution" it is not hard to see they are highly questionable solutions. The data supporting these "Solutions" is based on questionable statistics. (0.3 degree change can be proven in data with 100 degrees range?), questionable test data (0.2 change in pH units when the three standards used in the measurements are no better that plus or minus 0.2 units?), and monitoring points that were in a farmer's field when the monitor site was constructed, and today is in an asphalt parking lot.
So from this questionable data the solution to carbon dioxide that they claimed to be changing the pH of the ocean is to collect the carbon dioxide from the smokestacks and put it into the oceans. More Liberal logic.
The bottom line is the got-to-do-something thinking and not have any idea of the total chemistries and weather dynamics involved in the problems. They think they understand the problem with a couple of points in growing cities for a short period of a couple of hundred years, and think they can predict how a systems the works on million year scales. More liberal egotism.
I've often concluded that many problems in society result from "progressives" trying to fix an upstream problem that really wasn't much. My examples include:
Homelessness - When the liberals emptied the insane asylums
Education - When the "educators" thought some new idea was better than
5,000 years of experience.
Gun control - Where "no guns" implies no gun violence
Aid to Families with Dependent Children - That resulted in MORE dependent children and FEWER fathers and more
You've given me something to think about. I may very well have to add "climate change" to my list of failed, but not abandoned, responses.
I was converted when I read the first edition of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." Over and over, like a voodoo drumbeat, the author tries to employ a balancing test: Is the proposed solution worth the cost (or the consequences).
Hold on, let me get the book.
--GARBAGE-- First he states the perceived problem (chapter picked at random):
"We often worry about all the waste piling up, wondering where it will all can go*... This fear is perhaps expressed most clearly by Al Gore, who is disturbed by 'the floodtide of garbage spilling out of our cities and factories.' As landfills overflow, incinerators foul the air, and neighboring communities and states 'attempt to dump their overflow problems on us, we are now finally realizing that we are running out of ways to dispose of our waste'..."
Then he states some facts:
"Each American produces about 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day..."
He then points out how prophets of doom greatly exaggerate the problmem.
"Once again, sum up the entire waste mass and pile it to 100 feet. Surprisingly, we will only need a slightly larger area - it will fit within a square, less than 18 miles on each side... In figure 115 this landfill area is illustrated as being placed in Woodward County, Oklahoma. All the American waste of the entire 21st century will fit into a single landfill, using just 26% of the Woodward County area. Of the state of Oklahoma, the landfill would use up less than one-half of one percent. Of the entire US landmass, the landfill would take up about one-12,000th - less than 0.009 percent."
--------
All this assumes current technology. Had you asked a New Yorker in 1900 what he thought about the city's transportation problems 100 years hence when the population of Manhattan had increased eight-fold, he would have probably wondered where would we get all the necessary horses and what would we do with all the horse shit.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.