Nick, I see an important point in the text you quoted that I think you missed.
"So, my > conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain > reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions." We may be too late, or we may be close to too late. In either of those scenerios a 10% reduction will not save us, but merely cripple the global economies, and put the massive absolute solutions out of reach. We can't save civilization by dismantling it. This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. 2. This will free up resources that can be directed toward non CO2 producing energy solutions like various forms of cold fusion. 3. Leaders must direct appropriate research to be done with these resources. (this is what is still not happening) 4. Then, when practical solutions are identified, we will have sufficient wealth and prosperity to impliment them. This is the only way. Anything less than this brings us to global failure. Can it be done in time? I don't know, and neither does anybody else. If greenhouse gases are a problem that humans must fix, then this is the only way we can both fix it and save civilization. Jeff Fink P.S. This Kyoto stuff is a formula for disaster. We are past the point of no return on a takeoff runway. It is too late to apply the brakes and make a safe stop. It's throttle to the firewall. We either fly or die. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:10 AM Subject: Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change > Thomas Malloy wrote to the "lone wolf" meteorologist Roy Spencer and was > directed by the reply to his website of "serious articles" > http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267 > > Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying "I would say that > is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate > issues" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I say Mr Spencer himself is irresponsible and an (even more than an) idiot. > From his "serious articles" it is all to easy to see that he is not stupid - > he is far more dangerous than that - he is what I call "anti-intelligent". > Just like an anti-matter particle can seriously interfere with the life of a > normal matter particle, so then do anti-intelligent people royally screw > things up. Ordinary people make the mistake of giving equal weight to two > opposing "scientific" views. They assume that the underlying values and > beliefs and assumptions of both can be taken as read to be cool, unbiased > and responsible and wise. This is very often not the case!! An > anti-intelligent person uses their undoubted brain power and education to > come up with ideas and beliefs that are pathological - that tend to hurt > humanity and the ecosphere. They often seem more rational , more calm and > collected and more sensible. Watch out! > > This is the intelligent position. Greenhouse gases ARE increasing in the > atmosphere, Physics STATES that this will change the retention of energy > in our atmosphere unless there is some exactly equal balancing effect which > is highly unlikely, has not been mentioned, and it should not be gambled > upon that there is. There are many "feedback loops" that can be identified > (dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions depending on how you define the > categories) some positive, some negative. Depending on which combination of > loops proves to "have the upper hand", the Planet will retain more energy > from the sun causing ultimately disastrous global warming or will stay > exactly the same or we may end up with an ice planet. Warming will almost > certainly modify the feedback loops themselves. Once we are in a period of > unknown climate instability NO-ONE knows or can genuinely predict which way > things will go. Let me shout that again. NOBODY KNOWS WHICH WAY THINGS WILL > GO - NOBODY AT ALL - the basic laws of the universe say NO-ONE KNOWS FOR > CERTAIN. Anybody who disputes these statements is not just an idiot, they > are anti-intelligent. There are very many scientists and environmentalists > who believe in their theories so strongly that they believe they can predict > what will happen, but climate science is all deduction and inference. It is > not now, and never has been, an experimental science, so the hypotheses have > never been any thing like fully tested by any experiment (e.g - let's halve > the concentration of CO2 at the Poles and treble it at the Equator and see > if what happens agrees with our predictions from our hypotheses and our > computer models) and when one is dealing with a primary life support > mechanism for most life on Earth, it is highly irresponsible to accidentally > experiment with (more like monkey with) it, as we are currently doing. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- > > Mr Malloy seems to believe that Roy Spencer is "anti" the global warming > hype and thereby appears to believe that this means he is saying there is no > danger, and some of Mr Spencer's writings suggest this but from his own > articles, I have selected a few paragraphs that are hopefully not taken out > of context. > > From his "serious" articles > From the first article, paragraph seven <<And in the policy area, it would > be stupid to not do something now about reducing carbon emissions -- if it > were that easy. But I believe that major technological advances are the only > way humanity can substantially reduce carbon emissions in this century. And > as readers of my previous articles here know, I have argued that only the > wealthy countries can afford the R&D to make these advances. So, my > conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain > reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions. While this is also > similar to the Bush Administration's position, I have had no influence from > them or anyone else the last 20 years to change what I believe on this > subject.>> > > He basically admits that there IS a problem with increasing greenhouse gases > and he is gambling that we will invent technology that will be sufficiently > "major" to do the job in time. All of us here on Vortex are keen on new > energy technology and the clever use of existing technology (c.f. Horace's > monographs on financial incentives, reflective particles etc) but Mr Spencer > ought to realise the enormous "inertia" of the climate and ocean systems. We > cannot wait for something that may not come in time or may not be > sufficiently "major". Gamblers often lose. It is highly irresponsible of > them to take all the rest of us down with them if they lose. > > > From article 4 , paragraphs 2 and 11 > <<Similarly, if indeed global warming turns out to be a real problem, no > rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is sustainable. Second, the > sustainability argument neglects the proven role of technological advances > that, historically, make sustainability a moot point.>> > > <<Just as the deepening horse manure crisis was alleviated by the > introduction of the automobile over a century ago, I suspect that our > current worries over global warming will evaporate in the coming decades. Of > course, it will be in part the concern over global warming that will help to > usher in new energy technologies, and so the tension created by > environmental problems helps to motivate eventual solutions.>> > > He knows that greenhouse gases are increasing - he admits that no rate of > increase is sustainable. He finally admits that the hype over the dangers of > global warming " will help usher in new energy technologies" and that "the > tension created by environmental problems helps to motivate eventual > solutions" and yet he consistently tries to calm down the debate and adopts > an "it won't be as bad as people make out" stance, even though, as I proved > above, he CANNOT KNOW THIS IN ADVANCE for sure. His effect then is to lull > readers into a false sense of more security than is warranted and he > consistently tries to defuse the "tension" that he admits will usher in the > technologies that he is relying upon to come over the hill, like the US > cavalry, and save us all. > > Is this man not one of the most irresponsible people you can imagine? > > > Nick Palmer > > >
