Thursday, March 22, 2007

more informed induhvidual opinions on climate change at the herald

here.
man, some of these guys aint so bright.

oh, and to the guy that thinks co2 and methane sink - yes to co2 (it weighs 44 g/mol v air at about 28ish) until diffusion kicks in, and no to methane (16 g/mol). haven't you ever wondered how puddles evaporate?

for every skeptic out there, choose 5 equally qualified scientists that say they're wrong (and can back it up technically). now discard all of them. the scientific consensus is what remains. doesn't mean it's right, it's a consensus. the process has error correction built in. thats the role of the skeptic and it is an honest, lonely calling in the science profession.
however, when the consensus is telling you that you are literally screwing up the ability for 100's of millions of people to live, you should probably start thinking about some prudent risk reduction strategies. it's the job of govt. they're the ones with a mandate for running your society. science is just an input.
25 years ago, that would have been increased funding for the basic science.
10 years ago, increased R&D in oil alternatives, price for the right to pollute (at a relatively trivial level) and change your building/auto standards to promote maximum efficiency.
current: aim for worldwide commitments.
these actions would not hurt your economy, can easily be scaled up or down and would result in a strong solid base for acceleration if the science started coming down the wrong way. contrast this with actual: dissemblence for 20 years and accusations of 'junk science' and manipulation of the media to create an apparant controversy. ye gods, the 1950's tobacco strategic handbook with a find&replace change of topic. and they won.

nobody believed einstein to start with and complete change in under 20 years. nobel prize (for different theory, oh to have your own annus marabilis...)
no-one believed stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, 20 years to change opinion. nobel prize.

the blunt fact is that the scientific method, in general, and over suitable timeframes... works.

how many of you go to an oncologist and start dissing their chemotherapy advice? how many of you give your car to a mechanic and instruct them that they can't look at the carburator regardless of the symptoms? (do cars still have carburetors?).

good grief, blind ignorant vested interests are disturbing. as for the research gravy train? oh please, have you ever met a scientist? gravy train of funding is not a term i think you'll hear.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home