Climate “Consensus”: Everyone Should Appeal to Authority, Except for Us
|
February 02 2012
Last week, 16 scientists published an oped in the Wall Street Journal about how global warming isn’t a big deal. Yesterday, 38 scientists published a letter in the same paper, about how global warming is a big deal. Tomato, tamato.
Personally speaking, global warming is the last of my concerns. This is the predominate view among Americans. So my eyes glazed over the science squabbles in the two letters. I did, however, find it interesting that the second letter, representing the “consensus” view, contradicted itself.
The 38 scientists concede that their 16 peers are no doubt brilliant in their respective fields, just not in the field of climate science. The 38 scientists then claim that they specialize in climate science, so their conclusions are more trustworthy. Here’s the “consensus” argument, condensed:
You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science… Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record.
The letter is an appeal to authority. So it is surprising that the 38 scientists conclude their letter by making a sweeping conclusion in economics, a discipline in which they profess no expertise. They write,
In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
Quite contrary to what these 38 scientists would have you believe, there is no “clear evidence” that going green would “drive decades of economic growth.” In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite—that “investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy” will slow economic growth for decades. Energy is fundamental to every act of economic production; green energy is expensive and intermittent; by adding renewables to the global energy portfolio, the cost of economic production increases.
To meet the United Nations recommended greenhouse gas emissions reductions—which are endorsed by the climate “consensus”—the International Energy Agency estimates that the world would have to build 30 new nuclear power plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass plants, two hydroelectric dams the size of China’s Three Gorges Dam, and 42 coal fired power plants equipped with still-experimental systems to sequester their carbon-dioxide emissions underground each year from 2013 to 2030. The price tag? $45 trillion. By propagating the all-gain-no-pain green jobs myth, these 38 scientists run afoul of the economic consensus that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
But hoax has come out much sooner than they expected and they are now going to pay the price for that scam.
Or...
Conceal the priority?
Says it all don't you think?
Why can't we get a candidate to talk like this...
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash
for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans,
blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want
steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
(cont'd below(
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of
the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.
(cont'd below)
absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at
least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Is it really that ridiculous to ask those we are utterly and completely supporting, to live by our rules? I may have thought so as a child, but I have grown up.
Whether we are warming or not is irrelevant. Is it due to our CO2 emissions? NO!
As we have not warmed in 15-17 years and CO2 has continued to rise steadily, the disconnect between the two parameters is becoming painfully obvious. Anybody, including a "climate scientist" can understand that a trace gas simply cannot drive climate. Now we know of 38 "scientists" with less than half a brain.
RSS feed for comments to this post