Note: I wrote this entry in late October before the explosive development of East Anglia University Groupthink was revealed, though never published it. I think it holds up well.
We humans contribute three percent of the world's carbon dioxide, plant food last time I checked. And I learned from MIT climatologist and preeminent scientist Richard Lindzen that the atmosphere is only three percent carbon dioxide.
So we going to spend gargantuan sums on that? Three percent of three percent? As Bjorn Lomborg has repeatedly written and said, there're better dollars than that to help the environment.
Of course ecocide occurred in former and current communist countries--there seems to be a connection between larger government and a worse outcome for the environment--so I'm not clear why increasing the size and scope of gubmit will help when truly enormous gubmits failed miserably to keep the environment non-toxic.
An incredibly important book by Ian Plimer. A great post by Cato Institute's David Boaz. I remember hearing an interview with Charlie Rose and the late Michael Crichton. Boy did the latter lambaste the computer modeling, calling it "Garbage in garbage out."
I guess these models can't account for past climate changes or the current twelve-year cooling period we've been in. According to Ian Plimmer, the IPCC doesn't take into account known variables of climate change and overestimates the importance of carbon dioxide in bringing it about. Astonishingly, he claims the levels of carbon dioxide were higher during the last ice age.
Is it true the computer models aren't transparent? Is this science or more like a secular religion? Judging from liberals' response to the prospect of drilling in the frozen wastelands of northern Alaska (ANWAR), I'm thinking more and more we've got a surrogate religion on our hands.
Leave a comment