elmegil: (Default)
[personal profile] elmegil

I don't think I've seen his diagrams before, just read his verbage. I still think he tells a pretty compelling story, even if his examples sometimes ring false (comparing building a house to the future of the planet?? What??). I especially like the ending.

Date: 2007-11-16 10:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sterno.livejournal.com
And you just knew I had to respond :)

I've seen much of his logic disputed elsewhere. For example, the Hockey Stick thing I've seen mentioned many other places. Here's a good break down of the controversy and current understanding:


He complains that science has been wrong before and points to a few items that the climate science consensus has already addressed. He sites temperatures in Paris and says, "see it's cooler," but global warming theory doesn't say every little city will be warmer, it says, on global average things will be warmer. How about we look at some place way up north, where the global warming effects are more pronounced:


That's a 4-5 degree celsius difference. That's pretty damn huge. But of course that chart is just as arbitrary as his :)

I do recognize that the nature of scientific processes with the whole peer evaluation thing tends towards a certain level of group think. In a publish or perish world, publishing with the consensus has it's merits. But if there were any genuine controversy over this data, you'd see a great deal more legitimate debunking of it.

Truthfully though I sense that this debate is all irrelevant. If climatologists predictions are right, odds are we've already passed a point of no return where CO2 feedback loops will make things worse even if we stopped pumping it out today. What movement that has been made towards fixing the problem has been incremental and ineffective at best.


elmegil: (Default)

April 2017

23456 78

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 01:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios