(no subject)

[elmegil]

Yet another take on global warming:

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest76.htm

In another forum I've read reacently it's been noted that the IPCC's estimates for likely temperature change over the next hundred years have gone from the very significant 2.5 deg C to under 1 deg C. They've dropped steadily. Is there any reason to expect that these folks really know as much about what they claim as they want us to believe?

Comments

[elmegil.livejournal.com]

By the way, had you bothered to read what he wrote, his point was not only dismissing that less than 1 deg, but pointing out that an organization that can't even consistently predict a value for how much warming there will be in the next 100 years doesn't exactly have a lot of credibility. When your prediction varies as much as 300%, it doesn't mean much.

[reverendspork.livejournal.com]

The prediction variations are ultimately irrelevant. If the vast majority of scientists' predictions about global warming are exaggerated, what's the worst that can happen if we follow their predictions and take the appropriate steps to counteract global warming? Businesses and governments will need to spend some major moolah. However, if the vast majority of climatologists' predictions are correct and we do nothing, then all the money in the world won't do diddly-squat to address the environmental, political, and social chaos that would no doubt ensue before this century grows old.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one to play dice with the planet.

[elmegil.livejournal.com]

what's the worst that can happen if we follow their predictions and take the appropriate steps to counteract global warming?

We can destroy our economies and no longer be able to afford transportation much less Roomba's.

Any "major moolah" is quite likely to come out of your pocket and mine, not Joe CEO's nor John Senator's.

The argument does not boil down to Pascal's wager; it's not that simple even if you want it to be.

I'm all in favor of doing things to cut our emissions, but I don't think that the scale of change that they claim is necessary is going to happen until someone can get China, India, and the third world developing nations to sign on. So the US and europe can spend all its money trying to reduce emissions, all the while C/I/3 are all growing emissions faster than we can cut. A Recipe For Global Economic Disaster.

BTW the only real alternative to meet projected energy needs and make significant cuts in emissions is nuclear....are you ok with that?