View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2011, 15:05
  #8212 (permalink)  
Lonewolf_50
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,337
Actually, the IPCC is on the right track. 80% of energy needs could be supplied by renewables by mid century ... if we decrease human population by about 50%. I am still more interested in Nukes as the bridge supply for the next century or so while other means are better developed.

chuks: Democracy in action...
I think you are missing the point, Simonpro. If enough people get together to make the same point on a blog then that point should be taken to be correct because that is essentially democratic; the mob has ruled.
If the mob can reinforce its (or 'it's' if you really must) point with overheated rhetoric, so much the better; that trumps some abstruse argument based on data no reasonable non-scientist is expected to believe in without having to, perhaps, open a book to figure out what in the world is under discussion. Anyone can understand accusations and insults but how many of us can understand what constitutes 'science,' let along 'good science,' especially when scientists themselves often disagree ...
chuks, are you describing the AGW alarmists, or their opponents, the anti AGW alarmists?
Simon
The scientist recommendations (Part 3 of the IPCC report) aren't "hysteria", that comes from clowns like Gore and Greenpeace. If you actually sit down and read the WGIII recommendations you'll see that they aren't hysterical and are (fairly) reasonable.

As I have said time and time again, the problem comes when politics gets involved, then we have lobby groups on either side twisting the data and text beyond all recognition so that it suits their point of view.
Mostly agree, but there's a catch: it is the politics that HAS to be answered, so stupid decisions are not made. When half arsed abuse of science is used to inform policy, you get policy based on eugenics, which, here I go with a Godwin, goes to race mastery theory and in one case genocide ... some decisions and policies have nasty side effects.

Junk science is to me the cherry picking and abuse of science (and its ongoing process) that only takes part of the finding to make a policy. Cui bono, eh?

THAT is where the pro AGW crowd, particularly the most vocal, are doing a disservice. In particular, they are not pursuing alternate strategies, because somebody behind that movement sees yet another pocketpicking opportunity.

Now, without joking, I will point out that it matters not if climate warming costs human lives. There were less than three billion humans on the planet on New Years Day 1900. We can lose back to that level of population with NO fear that the human race will die off. The risk is: how much progress and civilization will be lost if the floods, famines, wars, fires, and storms "caused by AGW" begin to kill off the excess humans we have now?

Other political question: how does one decide who dies, who doesn't breed? That's as onerous a political question as this pocket picking exercise underway by the Gore crowd, et al. Perhaps moreso.
... Sven Teske, a climate change expert employed by Greenpeace, which opposes the use of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions.
That decision on whether or not that one is among the excess population is pretty easy to make. What did Henry II say about a certain archbishop?

"Will not someone rid me of this meddlesome Swede? "
Lonewolf_50 is offline