[ExI] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria
alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 08:14:57 UTC 2009
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:44 AM, John K Clark<jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Alfio Puglisi" <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>> Last century: [sea level rise] 7 inches/century
> I said 6 inches/century, but I won't fight you over that last inch; after
> all it's in my favor.
The point was that you asserted a continuity between post-glacial sea
level rise, and current sea level rise. I have shown you that
post-glacial sea rise stopped 6,000 years ago, so that the current
rise can't be attributed to ice age leftovers.
> Last 20 years: 10 inches/century
> So in the last 20 years the sea has risen 10 inches a century. Huh?
It's like saying that in the last 20 minutes you have been going at
100 miles per hour.
>> Stop this hyperbole. The IPCC quantified the additional expense in energy
>> investment at max $2T over 25 years
> Fuck the IPCC! If you're really serious about this, and I mean serious,
> you're going to have to abandon fossil fuels and that means condemning
> millions to death and billions to poverty.
I believe we are talking about different things.
1) checking whether global warming is happening, and why, is a purely
2) How to avoid it, and before that, whether avoiding it is
desiderable or not, is a policy issue.
I see the two things as entirely separate. I don't see how discussing
1), with the evental result that global warming is real, means I am
We are not entering issue 2):
> And all the ethanol alcohol and
Ethanol alcohol is a delusion. If you are "really serious" you don't
even mention it.
> wind farm fantasies
Wind energy instead can be a major player.
> in the world won't change that. I'm not happy about it,
> I wish there were a alternative, but there isn't, and raging against the
> inevitable is stupid.
That's circular logic: as long as you believe it's "inevitable",
you'll reject any possible alternative as "fantasies".
>> what is your estimate of people starving to death or
>> remaining in poverty if we don't take action?
> Like it or not the world runs on fossil fuels. Take that away then the world
> won't run.
> If the world doesn't run then people are going to die. Lots and
> lots and lots and lots of people. That's when the obscene term "Mega Death"
> would come into its own.
> I have no doubt that you are a good person and I have no doubt you wish the
> very best for the world, but wishing does not make it so.
I think you are again mixing the two issues: my good or bad intentions
and my wishes have nothing to do with issue 1). I understood that your
stance until now was "it's not happening" - is that incorrect?
> Good intentions are not enough; you've got to be smart.
I agree with your last sentence. If global warming will be as bad as
expected, the problem will indeed be difficult to solve. But your
waving of "millions" and "billions" of deaths and starving people
without good evidence, and without comparisons with alternate
scenarios, don't help.
More information about the extropy-chat