Yep, That Describes My Position As Well
Tertium Quid links to an Op/Ed in The Washington Post that perfectly describes my view on climate change:
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
[More]
UPDATE:
Brilliant: "An Inconvenient Tragedy"
(Hat tip: Darwin Catholic)
Labels: Climate Change, Malthusian Nonsense, Pseudo-religion, Pseudo-science
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:49 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
The reality of the influence of CO2 has been demonstrated on this website: http://random10.blogspot.com/2008/04/basic-co2-physics.html
CO2 is simply not capable of the "warming" attributed to its influence.
That doesn't mean that one should unthinkingly dump whatever into either the atmosphere OR the waterways...
Dad29:
While I have no doubt that the spectrometry analysis you're linking to is scientifically accurate, it's a faulty claim when dealing with the Earth's atmosphere (or it reads that way to this nonscientist). Yes, 100 percent CO2 can only trap 4 or 5 percent of the light spectrum. But that 4 or 5 percent stays inside the atmosphere, thus trapped. Meanwhile the earth receives new light from the sun every day. A trickling spigot, now matter how thin, will eventually fill up any bucket, no matter how large, given enough time and ceteris-paribis conditions.
There are many points on which to be skeptical about the current hysteria. But the baseline physics -- that CO2 traps heat, and that an atmosphere with X concentration of CO2 will be warmer, ceteris parabis, than an atmosphere with Y concentration of CO2, where Y < X -- is not one of them.
That's quite close to the position of most responsible environmentalists. The facts without the hype.
Umnnhhhh...I have few parallels in "non-scientific-ism," so I can only point out the science-types' thoughts.
FWIW, the PhD founder of the UW-Madison atmospheric science program (recently died, by the way) was famous for saying that 'one would have as much effect on GW by spitting as does CO2'.
Comparing exhaust fumes to ALL the exhalations of warm-blooded vertebrates, volcanoes, termites, and cattle (not to mention volcanoes) leaves one with the likely conclusion that exhaust MAY matter--a little, tiny, bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home