Apr 24, 2017
Apr 4, 2017
Scientists claim ice cores have revealed rapid, drastic temperature fluctuations in the distant past. (Ice cores, to refresh your memory, are those long tubes of ice drilled up from deep in the Artic tundra, in Greenland and such like places.) Now, I take them at their word. Through natural causes, the climate could suddenly drop sharply, or rise perilously, in the space of a century. Civilization could be devastated! Oh noooooo!
Note that they admit their models can't account for everything, and such erratic changes in Earth's climate are officially possible. Their prediction of a 3 degree rise is just a "best guess," not the only possible eventuality. Suppose there were unexpected volcanic eruptions, strange astronomical events, wildly unheard of sunspot activity, etc., etc.? Their models would be screwed! So, shouldn't we be prepared for THAT, as much as anything?
Yes, that's what I'm saying: We should be prepared to "adjust the Earth's thermostat" either UP OR DOWN, depending on what we confront! And, since the current temperature is ideal (apparently, since everyone is so dripping with anxiety over the possibility of even a 1.5 degree C rise), we should ready ourselves to spew MORE CO2, if need be (to warm things up to "normal," if we enter a mini- Ice Age, and get tired of the newly abundant sno-cone operations.)
OR, if the models UNDERESTIMATE warming --- as scientists admit could be the case --- and we have a drastic 17 degree C RISE in global temps, we should be ready not just to cut CO2 (which has only a long-term impact, not good enough for emergencies), but also ready to spew MORE sulfates and aerosols (since scientists say they have a rapid cooling effect. See: the eruption of Pinatuba during the 90s, which cooled things off real good, conveniently helping to "explain" the error in their models at the time.)
|Still from "Adventures of Drunky" cartoon|
But suppose a weird confluence of cosmic rays or some shize-nit like that happens, and COOLS the earth by 33 degrees C, or some other occultic number? Then, I say, we should quickly begin spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, to get things back up to warm and toasty 20th century levels. Ahhh, interglacial period bliss! Ain't she grand...
Yes, why all the obsession with just CUTTING emissions. Emissions can be good or bad, dependin'! If our bad old human emissions are the key temperature regulators, we should be prepared to overcome our natural disdain of sooty skies, and crank it up to 11 if need be! Get those smoke-stacks fired up! I mean, the current plan is so SHORT-SIGHTED. Your own fershlugginer ice cores are sayin' that climate has made rapid, drastic swings in the ancient past --- through NATURAL causes alone. So, let's "model" that.... Stick that in your GCM and release its carbon via burning....
Let's think LONG-TERM! Who KNOWS what could happen --- cold, hot; or maybe hot, hotter, chilly-willy, mm-so-so, shit! boiling again! We gotta be prepared, ba-by! Stand by with the CO2, get those sulfates on tap, and hey, how about a few more billion dollars for some waste of space climate research studies...
Apr 3, 2017
Feb 17, 2017
I Get Frustrated, Lemme Tell Ya --- Trying to Discuss Global Warming with Those who Buy the Mythology of Science
|Images (mostly) by Basil Wolverton|
Here's an argument I get from one particularly rabid Science True Believer (specifically about man-made global warming, but it could apply to any controversy):
"Oh, are you kidding me! If somebody could disprove global warming (evolution, vaccines, etc.) do you know how famous they'd be? Scientists would LOVE to make a discovery like that. They can't do it though!
But yeah, scientists love to pick apart each other's ideas... they're always sniping at each other, trying to find the flaws in each others' research... If anybody could disprove global warming, they'd ABSOLUTELY do so, because it would make their career!"
Et cetera, and so on. I think I have given the gist of the argument, and the tone, if not the exact words used.
There are two things that make this difficult to refute, in the midst of a lively conversation with multiple parties jumping in and diverting:
1) The total incredulity at any challenges to their idea (note exclamation points, and emphatic all-caps words.) They basically don't want to hear another point of view, and barely listen to anything you say.
2) My response is sort of complex, difficult to put in a sound-bite or short phrase. It strains the amount of attention-span they are willing to give me. I have, like, 5 seconds to make my case, and then they may interrupt, go off on something else, make a joke, get distracted, etc.
Feb 15, 2017
From time to time I think about the glut of "content" we suffer from --- the neverending flood of Seemingly Valid Shit (SVS) --- and I was doing that this morning, my mind wandering idly.
Then I had to play devil's advocate: "There is SOME stuff I like... some movies, some directors... Woody Allen, Roman Polanski. Guys like that. That stuff's okay... "
What struck though me is that both make movies "for adults" --- that is, mature, thoughtful, meaningful films, with artistic and aesthetic merit --- in fact Polanski jokingly said this in one interview I watched, in his funny broken English (paraphrasing):