![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleI've been noticing a new rash of articles spewing nonsense on climate change - specifically, exaggerating the accepted projections and making the risk seem more imminent and more severe than is scientifically justified.
Unfortunately, the scientific community is so preoccupied with defending itself against unjustified attacks - including death threats and unceasing legal harassment - that there is very little energy left over to correct the exploitation of global-warming fears for private gain.
For the record, I do not hold any favorable opinions towards current proposals to counteract climate change. I don't support cap-and-trade, efficiency mandates, or the Kyoto protocol, because unilateral action is pointless in the face of massive increase in carbon emissions from developing countries. Individual efforts to cut emissions may even be counterproductive; every gallon of gas not burned here is going to be burned somewhere, most likely in a country that will use it less efficiently.
If carbon emissions are ever going to be controlled - and that's a BIG IF - it has to be accomplished incrementally, step by step, in an environment that discourages cheating at the margin. A prerequisite for that is a solid agreement on the underlying science. The IPCC report is a good foundation for this task, but when environmentalist positions consistently go beyond that into unfounded speculation or outright deceit, that is every bit as bad as denialism. In some ways, it's even worse, because environmental catastrophists can wrap themselves in the flag of "science" without being challenged by their peers. It's painful to watch.
Unfortunately, denialists have created a vacuum on the environmentalist front that has allowed eco-looters to run rampant. There can be no question that there are armies of crooks lined up to profit from any effort to prevent or mitigate climate change, and right now there is nobody to stop them because the scientific foundation on which that defense would stand has been systematically vandalized. And, sad to say, some readers of this blog have been part of that process.
I have very little hope, at this point, that there will be any effective action taken against climate change; my only personal goal at this point is to help defend the integrity of science by countering exaggerations and lies from both sides. It's a lonely and depressing task, but one that goes way beyond climate. There are so many more immediate issues for the world to deal with - groundwater depletion, collapsing fisheries, antibiotic resistance, health care inflation - and they all depend on the credibility of the scientific establishment.
Unfortunately, in America, the age of science appears to be over. The barbarians have already crashed through the gates, and unless Obama or Romney wins in 2012, we will have, for the very first time, a president who is fully committed to the destruction of knowledge.
Unfortunately, the scientific community is so preoccupied with defending itself against unjustified attacks - including death threats and unceasing legal harassment - that there is very little energy left over to correct the exploitation of global-warming fears for private gain.
For the record, I do not hold any favorable opinions towards current proposals to counteract climate change. I don't support cap-and-trade, efficiency mandates, or the Kyoto protocol, because unilateral action is pointless in the face of massive increase in carbon emissions from developing countries. Individual efforts to cut emissions may even be counterproductive; every gallon of gas not burned here is going to be burned somewhere, most likely in a country that will use it less efficiently.
If carbon emissions are ever going to be controlled - and that's a BIG IF - it has to be accomplished incrementally, step by step, in an environment that discourages cheating at the margin. A prerequisite for that is a solid agreement on the underlying science. The IPCC report is a good foundation for this task, but when environmentalist positions consistently go beyond that into unfounded speculation or outright deceit, that is every bit as bad as denialism. In some ways, it's even worse, because environmental catastrophists can wrap themselves in the flag of "science" without being challenged by their peers. It's painful to watch.
Unfortunately, denialists have created a vacuum on the environmentalist front that has allowed eco-looters to run rampant. There can be no question that there are armies of crooks lined up to profit from any effort to prevent or mitigate climate change, and right now there is nobody to stop them because the scientific foundation on which that defense would stand has been systematically vandalized. And, sad to say, some readers of this blog have been part of that process.
I have very little hope, at this point, that there will be any effective action taken against climate change; my only personal goal at this point is to help defend the integrity of science by countering exaggerations and lies from both sides. It's a lonely and depressing task, but one that goes way beyond climate. There are so many more immediate issues for the world to deal with - groundwater depletion, collapsing fisheries, antibiotic resistance, health care inflation - and they all depend on the credibility of the scientific establishment.
Unfortunately, in America, the age of science appears to be over. The barbarians have already crashed through the gates, and unless Obama or Romney wins in 2012, we will have, for the very first time, a president who is fully committed to the destruction of knowledge.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:08 pm (UTC)I think you've hit the nail on the head though. Those who think that the oceans are going to rise by 20 feet and everyone is going to be under water fuel those who think nothing is going to change or that we don't impact our environment-- and vise versa. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:28 pm (UTC)Demand elasticity for oil is also very low, and the two in combination account for why the price goes up and down so much. Neither supply or demand responds well to changes in price, so the usual negative feedback that would dampen those swings in other commodities doesn't work so well.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 07:39 am (UTC)Joyclyn Elders was right: We all gotta learn about the joys of J/O.