Bringing the Debate to a Social Media Nearest You
Both Gutting and Jamieson
accept the IPCC conclusions, and even seem to think that ‘dangerous’
climate change is already happening. So starting from that particular
premise (with which I know many people here will disagree), Gutting and
Jamieson bring some refreshing realism to debate on how we should think
about climate change and what we should do about it.
Someone “thinks” that something dangerous is happening.
He doesn’t know how it’s happening. He can’t say why it’s happening. He
doesn’t have any data to show that anything dangerous is going on. But
by gosh, he’s convinced it’s happening … or to be more accurate, that it
will happen in a decade or two. Of course he’s been saying this for
three decades now, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..
So what scientists should do, according to this paradigm, is to
assume that Chicken Little is right and the sky actually is falling, and
start looking for solutions to a problem when:
• we don’t know if the “problem” is actually happening, and
• all predictions of calamities which this “problem” is claimed to
cause have proven wrong to date, and not just wrong but calamitously
wrong … and
• if the “problem” is happening, we don’t know why, and
• the models of the “problem” have all diverged from reality,
• we don’t know if we can establish climate causality or predict the
future evolution of the climate even in theory, so in response,
• alarmists all sit in a circle and jerk about how to deal with this
as-yet-unverified “problem” and talk about poor scientific communication
and how “deniers” are psychologically damaged, and meanwhile
• we piss huge unspecified amounts of money into various rose-colored holes in the ground and
• we plan to reorganize the entire energy system of the planet, using untried, unreliable, and uneconomic renewable sources, and
• we give billions to line the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt third
world dictators and apparatchiks, which under the new scientific
paradigm is described by words like “compensation, not inaction” and
“helping the poor” and “carbon-capture” and “making things
We must question the validity of the claims made by those people, that stand to get very rich, by convincing us, there is a climate problem that can be fixed, by throwing all of our money at it. Bullocks! Climate changes naturally, and we must accept that. End of story! Spend money, on ways to adapt, to what ever changes we may face.
Thanks Shellie. Appreciate your visiting and commenting!