Steve 41oo wrote:You know George its a remarkable fact, that what you agree with is based on solid evidence and science, and what you disagree with must therefore be unscientific nonsense.
That is an accurate portrayal of my expressed attitudes, (though you have omitted reference to things of which I have asserted that no accurate prediction could be scientifically made, thus taking a more or less neutral stance on the matter).
There are, of course, two possibilities here - (1) I am guilty of exactly those things of which I accuse others; or (2) I am right in my objections to popular beliefs.
I don't claim that others should accept my views merely because I studied Fluid Mechanics in grad school, any more than I should accept the findings of others with equal or greater academic credentials who express what I believe to to be seriously flawed analyses, possibly just to gain prominence in what is increasingly a very intense public matter -- one that contemplates requiring resources far out of proportion to the risks presented and wildly out of proportion to other, far greater, risks that go sadly ignored.
I accept that warming has been widely observed in the last few decades and that greenhouse gases are a likely component of the trend.
I also note that the remedies being proposed with such urgency involve the reallocation of a large fraction of the world's resources, and in several important aspects very strangely ignore some rather obvious and effective countermeasures - nuclear power being the obvious example. Moreover the programs so far put forward, with what appears to me to be so much dangerous enthusiasm, fall so far short of a realistic plan (Kyoto is the prime example) as to convince a reasonable observer that the unanticipated side effects of the proposed remedies may well be worse than those of the supposed problem they address.
I'll add that I am also concerned by the apparent implicit belief among many avid environmentalists (and AGW zealots) that humanity is some sort of infestation of an otherwise benign planet, and that the values of the planet (as exclusively understood by them) must necessarily trump those of humanity. There are other real examples of this - the abandonment of DDT so earnestly advocated by readers of Silent Spring has increased the world's population of pelicans and eagles, but significantly decreased that of humans. Mortality due to Malaria in Africa and other tropical regions now far exceeds that due to AIDS and is almost entirely the result of the DDT ban. Similarly European dread of genetically modified plants and the import restrictions they have imposed to suppress them have significantly retarded agricultural productivity in Africa and exacerbated hunger problems there -- despite the fact that these GM plants are widely used elsewhere without adverse effect. In short I am suspicious of both the motives and the zealotry of many self-labelled "environmentalists" and in some cases I have a fundamental dispute with their often unstated basic principles.
Thomas, whose focus is largely economic, has noted accurately that it is generally unwise (i.e. unrealistic) to base public policy on worst case scenarios. In some areas such as national security that may be an arguable proposition, however, I agree with him that it is a good rule. On the matter of AGW, however, we are confronted with zealots whose ultimate defense is always "well if it (their worst case scenario) does happen then all will be lost. Therefore you must do just as I say to prevent that possibility." I find that unreasonable and irrational, particularly in view of the often nonsensical remedies they go on to propose, and the unworkable assumptions they put forward about enforcement measures.
No one with any real understanding of the subject can seriously propose that we can significantly reduce our atmospheric carbon emissions without an organized priority effort to greatly expand our use of nuclear power and do so as a first priority. Despite this what we hear from the AGW zealots is that the problem of disposal of nuclear waste is scientifically unsolved (an untruth), and that we can meed their targets with demand controls, solar and wind power (nonsense).
As a result of all this I conclude that there is a systematic lack of a scientific basis in the propaganda so assiduously put forth by the AGW zealots. I believe I am correct and that a graduate degree is not necessary to make that conclusion.
