The Big Freak Out

I thought it was only Goldman Sachs that was doing the Lord's work..

I find it hilarious that there is so much outrage over this. Even if one accepts all of the assertions in this article as true, the "Steves" appear to be guilty of little more than engaging in the same foolishness that all of the cable news channels engage in on a daily basis. They appear to be guilty of engaging in behavior less disgraceful than politicians, who parade similar tripe, but boil it down into soundbites. They appear to be guilty of toned-down versions of the crap that we see on the bookshelves of B&N and Borders in the current affairs section. So what? Why all of the indignation? Most other authors, "journalists," and individuals with voices are equally, if not more, full of crap than the "Steves."

'Why call global warming a "religion"?'

Um ... because it is? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

I thought science was supposed to be about testing hypotheses, not affirming a certain set of beliefs? But I don't see anyone discussing how the Freakonomists got their math wrong. I also don't see any discussion, here or anywhere, about the possibility that sunspots are to blame -- the theory of solar-induced, rather than man-made, climate change...

For the same mentality in another field, read Gary Taubes' _Good Calories, Bad Calories_. Or look up plasma cosmology. Or Sun Streak. Or, so help me Mikey, even the study of post-traumatic stress disorder...

I am confused about how these two guys are less of an authority on climate science than the editors at Foreign Policy or, of all people, Paul Krugman, whose book on the subject is a POS, by the way--if the style of Chapter Five is simply a regurgitation of old ideas on climate change deniers then Krugman's book is the manure that comes out after that. Seriously, even hard core hippies thought the book was a rip off waste of time (and trees so hep me God). Whether FP, or any other piece of media besides The Washington Times, wants to admit it or not, there are many economists that have weighed the risk and projected costs of climate change and came out with a similar conclusion: the science is really still out on whether climate change is worth addressing in a dramatic, public policy arena. Maybe the people who plug Climate change are just ticked that they continue to loose the public debate on the issue. Or that the whole Global Cooling thing didn't pan out. Or that Global Warming had to be changed from the much more dubious Climate Change. Or that temperatures have been falling since Al Gore's movie came out--with pretty terrible science of its own. As far as talk about the whole thing where it is labeled as religion or whatever, consider this. Climate change cannot be dis proven to anyone who does believe in it. You can try, but it just doesn't pan out. Why? Because if temps rise, then it is climate change. If they fall globally, then it is climate change. If CO2 is a global warming gas, then how in the name of Science can temps somehow fall? People were putting Katrina as the face of what could happen every year to the Atlantic seaboard. That was five years ago, and we haven't seen a storm like that since. With the veracity that these guys get attacked is typical. Malthus thought we were doomed a couple billion people ago, and here we are, and I think in 2055, instead of being labeled as the generation that turned its back on Mother Nature, we will look curiously back and think how naive we were to think that we could really change the environment, excuse me, the GLOBAL environment, in such a fashion. But I am no climate science expert. I am willing to admit that. But at least I have the balls to say that, while I do not think that this so called climate change is something that deserves to be addressed full throttle, it should be considered. (I, ahem, wish Congress would focus on the economy, passing health care, those two wars we are in (I think, right?), bicycle safety, and then climate change. No wait, Darfur then climate change.) Either way, alternative energies can be awesome, but the reality is that the science is just not there. I rant, I know--but I happen to agree with the sunspots theory. Weird that humans aren't responsible for every environmental problem, I know. Among the non-experts include the founder of the Weather Channel and the Farmers Almanac (who have been studying weather patterns for over a century). Either way, I don't see why this is posted in FP Mag. And finally, we Americans are not the only ones starting to doubt this. The British and Australians don't buy it either.

Really Interesting, informative argument,
Just thinking of opportunity cost for this guys...