Repost-From if-then knots: “Response To Yetter On AGW”

Full post here. (Our author responds to another piece on global warming/climate change)

“A skeptic withholds judgment until evidence is provided. A denier either refuses to look at the evidence or refuses to change his or her judgment in light of the evidence.”

How do you maintain a reasonable skepticism as regards global-warming when so many people are claiming that the “science is settled,” and then using that conclusion to achieve other political and ideological goals?

You can point out the inevitable corruption that will result from mixing grant money and political interests.  You can argue that it may yet be another wave of post-Enlightenment Western Idealism with its own attendant problems:

I will add the following quote by Albert Jay Nock as far as the politicization (which those claiming action are seeking to do):

‘It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one’s needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so.

When is it ever settled?

Derek Lowe at In The Pipeline has a good post about politics in the lab.  Does it profit at all to mix politics and theory with the sciences?

Add to Technorati Favorites

2 thoughts on “Repost-From if-then knots: “Response To Yetter On AGW”

  1. I agree that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appear to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



Leave a Reply