https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATP6skzYbLo
Just maybe the climate alarmists have been a little too extreme for the rest of us.
"I think it's unconscionable right now that we're basically telling the poor world, look we got rich from fossil fuels, it was great for us, but I'm sorry there's no space for you."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/
13 comments:
I watched about 40 minutes of the video. This guy seems to speak rationally while accepting that climate change is more than not due to human behavior. This isn't necessarily widely held by all climate people. I was hoping to find (and maybe he touches on it, though I can't see it happening in this conversation) some description of what change is occurring without taking human behavior into account. That is, some say we're warming because of natural reasons and the degree of human impact is negligible by comparison.
My position is that it's always a good idea to find better ways of doing anything. But in this case, is climate change actually a problem, because we're still not hearing anything with regard to how much warmer it can get in order for it to be so. Everything is so speculative and, as he says, based on the most worst case models which aren't in any way guarantees.
What I think is more interesting, is his point that the developed world is saying to the rest of the world that it's been a good run powering our economies on fossil fuels, but y'all are SOL.
MN just passed an idiotic bill to make us fossil fuel free by 2030, when more than half of our energy needs are from fossil fuels, and acknowledging that there is absolutely no effective way to store energy created by wind and solar that would prevent blackouts during the 6 months of winter. The DFL literally just voted to turn MN into a third world country.
I know you're main point was about the third world, and there's no doubt that they will be screwed should fossil fuels be denied them. I was just taken by this guy's position, that he is totally down with the notion that climate change is driven by human behavior, as opposed to any cyclical aspect of climate. Despite his belief, he addresses all the concerns in a far more rational manner than the typical alarmist. The point regarding the impact on the poor is not all that new, actually. I've heard others assert the same reality before.
I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with efforts to find alternatives to fossil fuels, provided the trade-offs aren't as foolish as has been so evident thus far. But there's so much at stake by ending the use of fossil fuels which haven't come anywhere near being intelligently addressed, that one can only mock the alarmists for the fools they are. MN Dems are exactly that type of fools. But then, most Dems are as well.
sigh.
Please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/02/climate-cost-study-authors-accuse-bjrn-lomborg-of-misinterpreting-results
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bjorn_Lomborg
"Lomborg is
not a climate scientist
or economist and
has published little or no peer-reviewed research
on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions. "
I'm all for reasonable interrogation of what the experts say. But the key point is: It needs to be reasonable and from a place of being INFORMED on the topic, not ignorant of it.
People who believe uninformed sensationalists who are profiting off comforting the uninformed/ignorant so they don't have to challenge their presumptions are just listening to that which tickles their ears.
Be better.
I will affirm that the wealthy nations need to make sure nothing penalizes the poor of the world. Fortunately, healthy environmental options can help the poorer nations. They don't need to make the same mistakes we've made and profited off of (to the detriment of the poor...)
It would be easier to take your "concern for the poor" more seriously if you were ALSO expressing concern for the poor about the negative impacts of pollution and climate change has disproportionately ON the poor.
Be better. Be more informed with data, not ignorant sensationalists.
Same for all the other spokespeople in your "sources." You'd think that you'd be embarrassed to cite a bunch of non-experts who are speaking about that which they're not educated upon to tickle the ears of partisan conservative people.
The modern GOP, like older, earlier conservatives, are the party opposed to data, reason and science and it's just embarrassing.
It was one thing to be so anti-science in the dark ages. But you just lose all credibility now with it.
You want to be taken seriously? Go to school and become meteorologists or otherwise experts. Send your children to become informed scientists. Then do the research. Then reach conclusions informed by the evidence, not by alarmists ignorant and uneducated.
Dan,
I didn't claim that he is any of those things, merely that he had some thing to say that might affect how we look at the allegations of global warming. Just for the record, Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are none of those things either. Neither are any of the politicians or actors who lecture their inferiors about the evils of climate change, while living a lifestyle that is inconsistent with their rhetoric.
This notion that one absolutely must be an "expert" in a subject to look at and interpret data, or to offer an opinion on that subject is simply absurd. Obviously when evaluating those peoples views their "expert" status might/could/should be factored it, but lack of "expert" status shouldn't automatically disqualify them from participating. For example, Dan is clearly not an "expert" (or even educated) in many of the topics he spews about. I guess if we followed his standards, we'd just ignore him.
"The modern GOP, like older, earlier conservatives, are the party opposed to data, reason and science and it's just embarrassing."
This would be a false statement. FYI, one of the links I posted was basically looking at how the data doesn't fit the narrative, but it's always easier to blindly repeat the narrative.
"It was one thing to be so anti-science in the dark ages."
This would be amusing, if I didn't think that Dan really believed this nonsense. Especially as so many of the positions of the APL rely on denying science.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the "You can only speak on these topics if you have the appropriate credentials approved by those who uncritically accept whatever narrative is being discussed, unless you are as useful idiot and can move the narrative forward in which case you don't have to be an "expert"." (see Gore, Al- Thunberg, Greta- DiCaprio, Leo,- Bo, P- and their ilk.)
The hypocrisy on this issue is stunning, the Scientism is concerning, and the practice of attacking anyone who (as this post does) raises even the smallest questions is terrifying. Heaven forbid we question our betters.
"Especially as so many of the positions of the APL rely on denying science."
Another claim you can't support. You're almost certainly speaking of your UNscientific nonsense about your pet traditions around abortion and LGBTQ issues.
That you are ignorant of the science and those on the left disagree with your partisan hunches doesn't mean we disagree with science.
Dan
Interesting claim.
Virtually every biology and embryology textbook in existence (which are scientific disciplines) teach that a new, unique, living human being starts at conception.
Biology tells us that mammals are either male or female.
Evolution is based on a premise that cannot be falsified, which renders it unscientific.
As you've referred to Dr's as scientific experts, I've posted multiple Drs who agree that anal sex is harmful.
It's not my fault you choose to ignore hard science on these issues.
It's not just those two areas where leftists ignore science. There are plenty of highly credentialed "experts" who oppose the climate change narrative as the bunk it is. Dan pretends it is they who are suspect, but only because they've drawn different conclusions about the data available to everyone. Dan's a hack. Nothing more.
Art,
I didn't mention that, but of course it's True. Dan is quick to diminish people who have more than adequate credentials, when they don't reach the conclusion he's reached. I also didn't mention how cosmology, and statistics aren't kind to the materialist/naturalist/Darwinist narrative either.
Hell, Peter Singer has credentials out the wazoo, but he's gets ignored because of his conclusions are further down the inevitable path than most of the pro abortion crowd.
Of course let’s not forget how COVID and the “vaccine” were handled by credentialists, and how much of what we were told ended up being wrong.
Craig
Post a Comment