Not a particularly apt analogy, since anthropogenic global warming is well under way, with 0.8 =B0C of warming so far - it would be at stage 1 if it were a cancer, so it would be worth taking out one lung - but there's more to come, even if we put the brakes on CO2 emissions now.
As usual, Rich doesn't see very far ahead.
A standard denialist canard. Going over to sustainable energy sources isn't going to send us back to the Stone Age, any more than the Arabs quadrupling the price of oil did back in 1973, and while a tax on CO2 emissions would be the way to persuade the free market to organise the change-over as efficiently as possible, it isn't an essential part of the operation - if Rich's favourite Libertarian fruitcake can come up with a better idea, we'd all love to hear about it.
Rich seems to want to go into competition with Jim Thompson for the postion of the nit-wit who is most out-of-touch-with-reality.
We've got ice core data going back more than hafl a million years, and we've never had CO2 levels dropping "in a growing season or two". Rich does enjoy his fantasies.
As usual, the spooks seem to have picked their sources on the basis of their politcal reliability rather than their competence. The American Institute of Physices web-page on the history of global warming suggests that sharper spooks might have got the right story even that early.
Funny. Exxon-Mobil and the American coal industry are spending their money on encouraging denialism in the US rather than Europe, and yet Gunner Asch thinks that propaganda has always been more successful in Europe, when he is a prize example of the effectiveness of denialist propaganda in the US.
Our physiology and our economy is adapted to make best use of the current environment. Change the environment, and neither will be as well adapted.
Two different kinds of problem, with two different kinds of constraints - we've explained this to you before, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the distinction.
formatting link
You typically only get a couple of hurricanes a year; the standard deviation on the number hurricanes per year is the square root of the average number of hurricanes, so its rather hard to see a clear trend in the noise, let alone establish it.
A difficult proposition to validate, since you can't quantify "sour bummed-out anit-social" in any meanignful way - though an objective observer might equate with "raining on John Larkin's dafter pontifications".
Why would climatologists want to wrench control of trillions of dollars worth of the world economy? They won't be able to divert any of these trillions of dollars into their own pockets - Al Gore might be able to, but he isn't a climatologist - and in fact most of the current schemes want to persuade the free market to manage the transition from fossil-carbon-based energy sources to renewable energy sources.
This isn't so much wrenching control away from anybody, as persuading the economy to move onto a different path with better long-term prospects, since there seems to be less and less easily extractable oil around to be dug out.
Of course I've heard of the green revolution.
formatting link
You don't seem to know much about it. The "improved breeds" were basically "semi-dwarf" plants, with shorter, thicker stems that didn't bend over when loaded by a fuller head of grain that you could get by laying on more fertiliser.
This kind of sective breeding is a little easier than messing around with the CO2 metabolism in the plant - I've never heard of anybody even trying.
There is a very large number of potential weed species, some of whom may have been hanging around in marginal niches since the CO2 levels sank alarming a couple of million years ago, waiting for the CO2 levels to get up to the 1000-2000ppm for which they were well adapted.
formatting link
Todays genetic engineers don't have clue about how they did it, and will be busy re-inventing the wheel while the old plants storm across our fields.
But with a pretty good idea of what happened during the last half- million years of ice-ages and interglacials. Some of the previous interglacials were several degrees warmer than we are now.
Nonsense. Previous interglacila got appreciably warmer than this one, and the ice cores tell us a fair bit about the way the world worked then.
formatting link
We've already dealt with SO2 pollution and the destruction of the ozone layer without "seizing control of the world's economy". Particulates are studied, but they don't get as much interest as CO2 because they simply aren't as dangerous.
You should find yourself another denialist web-site. The one that you are currently regurgitating doesn't seem to be aimed at a college- eductated audience.
The analogy you are making is with a "patient who doesn't even have cancer". The climatologists - who are the closest proxy to medical practitioners in this particular scene - have excellent evidence to demonstrate that the earth is already suffering from anthropogenic global warming, and want to start treatment now, advocating a procedure that has a good chance of complete success, if started early enough.
You are in the position of a quacksalver who is claiming that - contrary to the professional advice - the patient doesn't really have cancer at all, and can go on smoking to their heart's content. Attractive advice for the patient in the short term, but lethal in the long run.
So while you may be playing with what was originally my analogy, your variation falsifies one of the more important facts of the situation, which is that the people who deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming don't base their arguments on sound scientific evidence, but rather claim that the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is not to be trusted, without having any coherence evidence of their own to put in its place.
=46or the Garage Test to be properly fair, the internal combustion engine (or other smoke and CO source) should emit the same amount of CO and particulates into the air per unit time as your tobacco product of choice.
He's not a climate scientist is he? Just a politician.
Sorry, you won't convince me the current global scientific consensus on climate change is all wrong, by claiming to find a mistake in a politicians polularization.
Politicians and the media talk nonsense about climate change all the time, but they do that about a lot of other stuff too.
We just had some flooding here in a region of the UK, a "300 year" rainstorm that washed away bridges and killed a police officer. Of course it was reported as being a symptom of global warming by the media, which it is not. Actual climatologists do not actually say things like that. They might say something like "in the long term we expect to see a trend towards increased occurences of extreme weather events, due to increased available thermal energy in the atmosphere". Or some such.
Not only that but a heck of a lot of fires are started by dozy smokers dropping cigarettes into the corners of settees and chairs.
And the amount of fuel used should be the same. Net result is that whilst Rich will kill a few brain cells to sate his nicotine addiction. BTW You can extract an almost lethal dose from a single cigarette with the right solvent.
The CO is the least nasty of the rather long list of toxins and known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. CO does however bind permanently to haemoglobin taking it out of circulation and so stresses the heart. There are quantitative studies of the effects on animals:
formatting link
It is probably why he so vehemently refuses to accept that AGW and climate change is real. The guys who used to work for the tobacco industry to keep the suckers smoking are now prominent AGW denialists. Their product is sowing confusion about the science in the public mind to keep them from making rational decisions. The methodology works all too well as Rich clearly shows.
No it's the crap science sowing doubt along with the lying and cheating by CRU and friends. As I quoted earlier:
formatting link
/quotes
From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
/end quotes
And
/quote
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ?what if? projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent ?story lines? that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today?s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.