Friday, September 24, 2010

Will New Evidence Convince Cuccinelli to Drop War on Climate Science?

One of the things you always hear from science deniers like Ken Cuccinelli is that if only there were more research on global warming, it would align with their political opinion that climate change is (depending on the day):
  • Not happening
  • Happening but not our fault
  • Happening & our fault, but oh, it's not so bad
  • Sunspots! Martian warming! Fartgate, follow the smell!
But the problem with that is, the more scientists look into climate change, the more they find the planet is warming, manmade carbon emissions are to blame, and we need to switch to clean energy sources as soon as possible to avert catastrophic impacts.

So now that two new independent studies have both come to the conclusion that current global warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed & cause, do you think Ken Cuccinelli will consider his demand for more research fulfilled, drop his attacks on the Clean Air Act & support more wind farms & energy efficiency in Virginia?

Yeah, me neither.

2 comments:

Citizen Tom said...

That is your proof?

Somebody does scientific study. Another organization with an axe to grind peddles it as "proof," and we are suppose to panic? You do realize a forced cutback on fossil fuels would starve of bunch a people?

Even if we assume these localized studies accurately show the drift of the temperature of the entire earth, the connection with carbon dioxide levels still pure conjecture.

Unfortunately, we don't what the data means. There are at least two problems with it (three if we include politics).

The first problem is that we have contaminated the data samples. If man is such an important environmental factor, then we have to consider the possibility we have contaminated our studies. Here are two examples.
(1) There is a phenomenon known as heat islands. We have put concrete and asphalt all over the place.
(2) We have cut down more forest (including in the Amazon Basin) than I like to think about.

Do you have any idea how much just the two items above skew "global warming" data? We can only guess.

The second problem is one of sheer ignorance. We don't know how to define "normal." Even without our interference the geologic record shows ice ages and tropical periods. If man did not exist, what would the data show? Nobody knows.

So what are we suppose to make of the studies? Who knows?

You want people to use less fossil fuel? Then advocate a tax on plain ordinary pollution. It is bad in any event. To reduce pollution, push to replace income taxes with consumption taxes aimed squarely at plain ordinary pollution.

You want people to use resources more efficiently, then reduce taxes let people spend their own money. Nobody wants to waste what they have worked to earn. However, government has no such incentive.

TheGreenMiles said...

Dirty the Global Warming Denying Sock Puppet couldn't have performed the Denier Dance any better. Any scientific study that disagrees with Tom's political view? AXE TO GRIND! CONJECTURE! Whereas the American Petroleum Institute is a paragon of integrity.