Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25068)	8/28/2009 1:36:37 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Do you mean it predicted the volcano, or does the model say "if a volcano erupts, put this data in here" and the model then adjusts what's going to happen accordingly? <Hansen's computer model so far has been right on the money for the climate changes occurring and even caught the cooling effect caused by the Philippine volcano eruption > The models need to run for a few decades, without alteration, fine tuning or sneaky reality matching to be considered somewhat representative of reality. Or, they could provide remarkably detailed and precise predictions over a year or two which would be good evidence of having some close association with climate. It used to annoy me greatly when people would say "There is no evidence that such and such does harm", as though the absence of evidence was evidence of absence. When there is no upside to something, such as lead pollution, it's a reasonable argument that until there is some evidence, the pollutant should not be allowed. The "precautionary principle" doesn't apply to CO2 emissions because CO2 is not a pollutant. When people call it a pollutant, it shows their dishonest thinking. Water is also a pollutant in the wrong place in the wrong quantity, but it's silly to call it a pollutant. I'd be happy to simply believe a good causal relationship argument rather than require super fancy climate models. So far, I haven't seen one. On the contrary, my causal relationship thinking seems better than those ideas offered saying there's a catastrophe looming. I like a good panic, I'm an enthusiastic environmentalist, I invented the precautionary principle, but there needs to be some good reason for concern. I have been watching for quarter of a century and there is little evidence of a problem but some evidence that CO2 is a solution. The best thing so far about CO2 emissions is that plants love it. It's too early to claim that CO2 is preventing reglaciation, but if it is, that would be even better. I doubt that homeopathic CO2 [compared with H2O] is going to be of much consequence either way. Initially, [back in 1984] I assumed that CO2 could well be a problem, but over the next few years I decided it wasn't going to amount to much and if it did, there are solutions to avoid the problems [such as carbon taxes, moving uphill, CO2 collection and sequestration under the ocean as a liquid, along with conservation measures such as vastly improved technology and management]. If there is an effect from CO2, I decided it would be good effects [decided by 1988]. I have no investment in CO2 not being a problem. If it turned out to be a problem, it would not be a problem for me to change my viewpoint. But the Greenhouse Effect doomsters act as though they are fanatical cult members. To them it's heresy to even think about CO2 not being a problem. They get all abusive, call people Denialists and compare us with Nazis putting Jews on trains to extermination. It's not very persuasive to call people names. That's the weakest of arguments, but it seems to be their most popular argument. There is talk of gaoling or executing us. Mqurice