global warming.

Feb 14, 2017 21:03

one of my feed on FB today (Unbiased america if anyone is curious, great feed, well researched and reasonable) wrote this ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 12

prester_scott February 15 2017, 03:32:03 UTC

I actually don't think there's warming, or to be more precise, it isn't proven that there is. In addition to everything you just said.

There's a case to be made that there's global cooling going on, what with the sun entering a period of very low activity. That's arguably a lot worse for humanity, but the establishment is so convinced of their narrative that we're not preparing for that.

Reply

ford_prefect42 February 15 2017, 03:56:57 UTC
Understandable. There has been entirely too much ... Excuse my french... Fuckery... to be confident of anything on this topic.

Reply


dantheserene February 15 2017, 03:50:24 UTC
A fair number of climate change advocates (which sounds so much more polite than "fanatics") seem to either not understand or not care about the opportunity costs involved in destroying a chunk of the world's economy in the name of their favorite cause.

Reply

ford_prefect42 February 15 2017, 03:58:53 UTC
Exactly. Risks and damages NEED to be weighed and measured against the risks and damages of the alternative scenarios.

I have concluded that, based on the science, even IF the AGW fanatics are right about the facts, they're STILL wrong about the prescription.

Reply

banner February 15 2017, 04:07:54 UTC
Oh no, they care, because it's what they want.

Reply


banner February 15 2017, 04:13:01 UTC
My comments on the whole global warming thing has been ( ... )

Reply

ford_prefect42 February 15 2017, 13:05:13 UTC
I would add 4) prove that it's a worse thing than the mitigation would be. That one is an absolute killer, because rising sea levels could seriously suck. Just nowhere even CLOSE to as much as plunging the world into an impoverished totalitarian socialist dystopia absolutely *would ( ... )

Reply

banner February 15 2017, 17:36:27 UTC
Actually the sea levels would probably go down, not up. Hotter air hold more water. The atmosphere is far bigger than those glaciers that would melt.

Reply

ford_prefect42 February 15 2017, 17:53:41 UTC
Aiui, the bulk of sea level rise is supposed to be from thermal expansion of liquid water... over the next thousand years, so hardly the end of the world.

Reply


mosinging1986 February 15 2017, 04:32:06 UTC
I was going to comment, but banner beat me to it!

So, as the kids on the intertubes used to say, WHAT HE SAID!

Reply

kharmii February 15 2017, 12:09:54 UTC
THIS.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up