kluge

So, Hubris (apt name - congratulations!) do you want to share with us your scientific qualifications to opine on the validity of anthropogenic climate change science?

Zoos - that's true. And we could all be wiped out like the dinosaurs by a meteor strike, or killed off by a new flu strain, or something. But I still think it's wisest to plan for the future we can predict. And unless one of those unpredictable things happen, following the urgings of the science-deniers will make the future bleaker than it has to be for our children and grandchildren. (Not so much for us - parents of college-aged children probably won't live long enough to experience more than a taste of what is likely to come.)

zoosermom

"Zoos - that's true. And we could all be wiped out like the dinosaurs by a meteor strike, or killed off by a new flu strain, or something. But I still think it's wisest to plan for the future we can predict."

The difference is that there are often weather-related events that impact climate.

bdmrad

I can accept that the Earth is warming and/or cooling. But whining, finger pointing, posturing and patronizing the opposition is only a continuation of red state/blue state politics. My concern is that politicians and "progressives" will want to legislate policies that will "correct" whatever is believed to be the problem.

That's how we end up with ill-considered things like 55 MPH speed limits, biofuels that contribute to starvation, bans on incandescent bulbs, gas tax holidays and other such folly. Just window dressing feel-good moves for the Cassandras of the world.

There are better reasons than global warming to develop alternatives to oil as a major energy source. It would be better to fund cold fusion than line the pockets of the Iowa caucus voters(ha.) But I guess there are more voters in Iowa than there are scientists and engineers working on these issues.

Call me a conservative, but nobody in politics today is able to predict the unintended consequences of their actions.( This goes for health care too.) The shrill calls for immediate action just grate on me. I remember the 70's all too well.

garland

55 MPH speed limits--save lives, do cut down on greenhouse gas emissions (slightly) and do cut oil dependence on other countries (I'm guessing that's one of your "better reason" to cut oil as a major energy source.)

Biofuels--many environmentalists are fervently against these (unless we're talking reusing food oils, etc). They are the product of Big Agro companies and the politicians they own.

BAns on incandescent bulbs--not widespread, but hardly something to tear one's hair out about.

Gas tax holiday--this one on your list especially puzzles me. It's the opposite of what anyone concerned with climate change would want. It will lead to more gas usage, obviously, and seems to be the product of pandering for votes, not reasoned policy.

barrons

The 55 mph speed limit also wasted millions of hours of peoples' time for marginal results. On interstates accidents are so relatively few that the lower limit had hardly any imapct. Maybe a tiny state like NJ can get along OK with a lower limit as you can't drive much more than 3 hours anywhere in the state. Out west of the Delaware things get much more wide open and spending an extra three hours driving across Texas is not efficient or fun.

And Hubris, if I thought that science actually knows 25% of what creates long term climate changes I'd have more faith in their conclusions. They don't. They have just begun to scratch the surface. The so-called science has only been around for about 30 years.

barrons

Time=money. Look it up.

bdmrad

I was using the 55 mph speed limit as an example of knee jerk but ineffective use of the nanny state to affect individual behavior rather than promoting long term strategies that might really make a difference. Like nuclear power. Or coming up with a way to use coal that is eco friendly since we have so much of the stuff.

I like to joke that I would put a nuclear reactor in my crawl space if I had to to insure the continuous flow of power. I think Toshiba might have such a model.

StickerShock

Are those reactors squirrel-proof?

bdmrad

Not sure about the squirrrels but here it is:

Toshiba's building a "Micro Nuclear" reactor for your garage? - Engadget

WashDad

You are 0 for 3 here. The 55 MPH speed limit policy did not save lives, did not cut down on emissions, and did not reduce oil consumption. The only major effect was providing a lucrative income stream for law enforcement agencies. The policy was a complete failure in every way.

garland

yes, it does when followed. If half the road persists in ignoring it, that will result in more accidents. That's the fault of the lawbreakers, not the law.

I don't know what vehicle you drive, but every one I have ever driven gets better mileage at medium speeds. The highway we frequently drive these days has a 55 stretch; during that part, we can see our mpg go up.

Better mileage means less use of gas means lower emissions and less oil dependency.

kluge

Driving at 55 mph does consume about 20% less fuel for mile traveled than driving at 70 mph - that's documented, and unavoidable. The problem is that Interstates are designed for 70 mph, and people are unconsciously driven to drive at the speed the roads are designed for. Trying to make them go slower by putting up speed limit signs and ticketing the "speeders" doesn't work. People will still unconsciously want to drive 70. It's an interesting phenomenon. It is possible to lower traffic speeds through physical modifications to the road; in fact, it is a more reliable way to govern speed than posting signs and ticketing. My personal preference would not be to travel long distances on Interstate highways at 55 mph.

And Barrons - still pulling random and meaningless statistics out of your.... hat ... again, I see. Always fun to see you opine sagely about what scientists do and don't know, from your comfortable position of complete ignorance of their work.

barrons

Even most climate scientists will admit how limited their overall understanding is.

ZENIT - Global Warming Natural, Says Expert

garland

A random physicist doens't get what thousands of climate change experts are doing.

Stop the presses.

I've haven't heard any expert say that other forces don't also and haven't also affected the climate; but I am more concerned, as they also seem to be, about the very sudden and unprecedented atmospheric changes which are anthropogenic and piled onto natural conditions in a decidedly unnatural way, causing a swifter and, yes, unpredictable future unstability.

kluge

As I noted before, Hence, Barrons offers us Antonio Zichichi, a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna - with no training or research performed in the area of climate change. The prevalence of older gentlemen enjoying a day in the sun to the applause of the denier claque has been noted by others, of course: Inhofes List of Global Warming Deniers Includes 49 Who Are Retired - thedailygreen.com
This guy, at 78, is practically a spring chicken by Barron's usual standards. The last "I just don't get it" retiree Barrons propped up here was well into his 80's.