Comments on: The Value of Heresy

By: Steve Bergstein

Steve Bergstein — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:00:43 +0000

Have you read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear? He addresses the same basic concerns but adds a significant theme of “fear is a tool that politicians and other elites use to control the masses”. Among the circumstantial arguments that he makes is that global warming popped up only shortly after the end of the cold war.

Continuing in the fear-as-instrument-of-control direction, I’d suggest that if the terrorists were as numerous and organized as our politicians would have us believe, then it’s incredible (in the literal sense of non-believable) that we haven’t been successfully attacked on US soil in the six years since 9/11. And the attacks on Western interests as a whole have been really, really limited (some moron trying, unsuccessfully, to drive a car into an airport – give me a break!).

By: Chuck McKinnon

Chuck McKinnon — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:08:46 +0000

Robert: that was no cheap shot, and with due respect I think your estimate of 10-15 years is only wishful thinking.

I’ve become a huge climate change skeptic since I started working for a company that produces and sells an N-dimensional vector solver for quantitative financial analytics. Modeling complex systems is inexact at best, and downright bullshit at worst. If the climate modelers were really capable of creating an accurate model of global climate (e.g. one that had genuine predictive power), then Goldman or JP Morgan or Bear Stearns would have bought them up long ago so they could apply their talents to modeling market and credit risk. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, so money would literally be no object.

Watching the Goldman GEO fund lose 30% of its value las week is just one more example of how imperfectly we model complex systems and assign risks to different factors. Considering that the solutions proposed by many climate change doomsayers are dramatic and expensive, I think it’s wiser to proceed with caution.

By: Robert Hacker

Robert Hacker — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:18:38 +0000

Agreed-heresy has a value. However, history of science probably has as many cases where we knew the truth before we could prove it as cases where heresy led to a major scientific breakthrough. Cheap shot on models. Hurricane modeling is also incomplete but we are much better off with the forecasted paths than without the information. Climate modeling is probably 10-15 years behind hurricane modeling but it will eventually reach the same level of sophistication and then we will have increased confidence of what we already know.

By: Jay Parkhill

Jay Parkhill — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:36:25 +0000

I don’t get the “study fully before acting” argument.

Dyson talks about diagnosing patients before attempting a cure, but medicine has never waited for a “perfect” diagnosis. Doctors don’t wait to “fully” understand cancer- they posit ideas, test them and use what works.

Maybe the problem is that climate is an even more complex patient than the body, and since there is only 1 there is no control group.

Does that argue for more study, or faster action? It probably depends on what you believed before the question was asked. I think it is time for study AND action.

By: Joshua Allen [msft]

Joshua Allen [msft] — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:45:07 +0000

Friedrick, you’re half-right. Even if there is no global warming, we’ll blame it on China, because that’s the plan. The whole idea of “global carbon credits exchange” is an EU/US conspiracy to put economic pressure on China. We consume all of their goods and take the profits, but outsource the dirtiest and most energy-intensive parts to China. Then, when we use up the goods and need to dispose of them, we ship the toxic waste back to China’s electronics dumps. Then we blame them for the pollution, and offer to sell them medieval indulgences in the form of pollution offsets and carbon credits. Worried about the US national debt? Problem solved! Considering that we’re China’s primary customer, it’s like johns blaming prostitutes for moral turpitude.

And yes, I’ve been to China several times, have talked to senior people doing major energy and pollution projects in many provinces, have some background in this area, etc.

You should read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” before swallowing EU/US propaganda about China’s contribution to global warming.

By: Thomas Laprade

Thomas Laprade — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:02:59 +0000

Global Warming??

Dear Editor,

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php

By: geraldb28

geraldb28 — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:47:07 +0000

Whole earth systems are insanely complex and while we don’t know nearly enough to diagnose the patient… somewhere within the last several thousand years or so ago we became smart enough to know what we’re seeing is outside our immediate experience.

Now, does that mean it’s part of a larger cycle or it’s something manmade? Who could possibly *KNOW*? Scientific method would suggest we stay open to all the possibilities. Yet, we seem hell bent on somekind of radical surgery. So, do we lop off a limb? Perform a labotomy? Enema? Band-aid? Or, maybe, just maybe our patient is totally healthy and isn’t reacting to the parasitic critters making a living on the surface.

By: Friedrickfr

Friedrickfr — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:39:59 +0000

Run through the park at the Temple of Heaven in Bejing and feel your pores burn from air pollution. Then you will feel the pains of human-born pollution causing global climate change. The USA has no idea of what the true impact of pollution is. When you experiance the acid burning your skin as you jog through one of the most sacred areas of China you will not be a heritic anymore. The pollution doesnt affect us yet because they are on the otherside of the world We need a major culture change ASAP!

By: Andy Swan

Andy Swan — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:31:27 +0000

I hear you. I consider myself an “environmentalist” in that I grew up in a family full of farmers. Taking care of the environment and conserving what we have is a top priority.

However, it seems that now “environmentalism” and the “green movement” are merely trojan-horse movements and buzz words for “socialism”. Scare tactics are being used to guide well-intended people towards heavy regulations, increased taxations, and government controlled wealth distributions.

The sad thing is that now all “clean water” or “environmental” initiatives are stained with suspicion until proven innocent.