Of the three authors, I consider the Koonin book to be the least impeachable since he mostly debunks unfounded climate conclusions with UN and government data. His book is full of charts and graphs. That activity creates a long list of high profile spokespeople who are reflexively compelled to discredit him instead of admitting their own false narratives.
Lancet-oncology said:
Of course that is BS, epitomized by the congress rep who brought a snowball to his floor speech.
thank you... politics is a very short time horizon exercise. The new climate (I mean anti-inflation) bill includes a slush fund for government to pick new climate industry winners. We should recall "Solyndra" (sp?) and other taxpayer funded black holes, funded during the Obama administration. Government is lousy at creating or managing new technology.
But that is not the issue. That the earth is warming is an objective fact. That human activity at least contributes to that in some fraction is also widely conceded.
In fact moderate sun exposure is healthy (Kime wrote a classic book on the subject) but of course too much sun exposure is a bad thing.
We need the wealth from cheap and plentiful fossil fuels to fund the adaption we need to execute to prosper despite global warming over the coming centuries. Wasting the world's wealth on pet climate projects will do far more harm than good for the world's poor.
If fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful (exactly as they have been for the past 150 years), what exactly is the financial incentive to find a practical replacement? Why hasn't the free market solved this problem over the last century?
Good question
Do we not have electric cars for people who want them? Has battery and electric motor tech not advanced? Big question is why reliable and relatively compact nuclear power generation has been allowed to languish in the US. Why are we wasting billions on fusion research while very little is spent on pragmatic Thorium cycle fission? All of the additional power has to come from somewhere and it must be baseline.
I find it instructive that premium EV makers including Ford's EV pickup truck, have raised their retail prices roughly the amount of the new tax credit ($7500). I guess that's our new "inflation reduction" act at work.
I too find it instructive showing how capitalist industry rapes the consumer for their own profit.I find it instructive that premium EV makers including Ford's EV pickup truck, have raised their retail prices roughly the amount of the new tax credit ($7500). I guess that's our new "inflation reduction" act at work.
JR
I think there are a lot of deniers out there who disagree.
Sure, making significant changes to our energy sources is going to cause problems. But not doing so may cause more devastating problems. As I said before, pick your poison. I'd pick reduction of greenhouse gas production ASAP.
I will agree with you that they are wrong... The globe has been warming and cooling forever. Human influence seems small but real.
We need to be clear minded and thoughtful about this calculus (tradeoff). IMO Low cost plentiful energy is not the problem but the solution to help us pay for adapting to climate change over the next century and more. Shutting down fossil fuels while throwing hundreds of billions of tax dollars at EV subsidies is mainly a short term feel good political exercise that won't bump the thermometer. One might speculate that they are seeking winning campaign issues to use in a couple months.
I do not consider them credible. It is a common political strategy to gin up some scary bogeyman common threat to unify voters against.
In all honesty, what do you mean with "low STEM voters" and exactly what is believing in climate change? This is the problem with speculative science, basically there are always reasons that can be found to refute the other side because there is no solid proof of either posture. I have already mentioned this in the past, but science is not a voting system, the ad populum fallacy is something very common, I already gave examples of this in previous posts.
since I injected that comment, I mean people lacking scientific understanding and critical thinking.
As I have long pointed out, climate change is an objective fact so difficult to not believe...
+1 you are clearly not the low STEM voter I alluded to.
John, the reason I ask about what is meant with "believing in climate change" is due to the fact that, yes, climate change is an objective fact, but most of the time when people say that someone doesn't believe in climate change, they actually mean that they don't believe that all hell will break loose, there will be fire and brimstone falling from the skies, and world destruction in a matter of a few decades. Its the hidden meaning behind the words that I want to know.
