Unfortunately then you'll have to take much more than your fair share of
the "misery" because I (and as many others as I can convince) won't be
doing our fair share. First I don't believe that the current warming
(actually there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for
about 15 years) is anything but natural along with a small anthropogenic
component. Secondly, even if I did believe that you and I are
responsible, an 80% total worldwide energy reduction within 50 years or
so just isn't going to happen even if we all have the best of
intentions. Do you have any idea how you could actually achieve this?
If your contribution is something like running a heat pump you've got a
long, long, long way to go. Thirdly, even if the computer models are
correct and temperature does actually rise 4-6C by the end of the
century it is much less expensive to embrace mitigation rather than
prevention.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html>
I've never seen or studied a complete computer climate model but I have
studied some of the code written by the academics as the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. As a former IBM Systems
Test manager of many years I have to say I've been appalled at what I've
seen. How anyone could trust the output of such a jumbled mess is
beyond me. I doubt that any of them completely understand their own
work and doubt that any of it has or even can be tested. But I don't
worry about climate models anyhow. I believe climate is a chaotic
system just like the weather. Climate modelers have no more hope of
predicting the climate of 2100 than they do of predicting the Dow Jones
Industrial Average of 2100. In fact, no climate model predicted the
warming hiatus since 1998. I'm not surprised.
Sorry, but to make up for me you'll not even be allowed a small fire in
the fireplace. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/29/2012 3:17 PM, CyberSimian wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> But, denyer or worrier, the fact that Britain produces only a small
>> fraction of the earth's anthropogenically produced CO2 while the US (and
>> especially now China) produce the bulk of it makes me call you
>> financially impractical. Even if all of Britain did what you're doing
>> it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. The entire world will
>> have to reduce total energy consumption by about 80% in order to make a
>> dent in the (assumed) temperature
>
> This is to miss the point, which is this:
>
> The misery of curtailing runaway global warming must be equally distributed
> around the world.
>
> We in Britain cannot expect the populations of China and India to embrace
> the misery of curtailing runaway global warming if we in Britain say "But
> our contribution is so small that we do not need to do anything". We need
> to embrace the misery even though our contribution will make no practical
> difference to the end result.
>
> The misery must be equally distributed.
>
> -- from CyberSimian in the UK
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|