May 7, 2013
Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a greenhouse effect. I believe
climate changes due to that and I believe man has an impact. But leaping
from those beliefs to the prescription we need a hydrocarbon starvation
diet is a bit much.
July 5, 2012
I do believe man impacts climate. How can man not impact climate? The
only way we can eliminate man's impact on climate is eliminate man. I'm
not willing to accept that step.
February 10, 2012
But you can admit the climate is changing and not agree to the Al
Gore/Jim Hansen/Joe Romm solution. Or you can agree the climate is
changing, but the predictions of the feedback loops are highly
May 22, 2013
What I find curious about these jeremiads is they (willfully?) ignore
the progress that has been made in carbon emissions in the US since
2007. You can't get this from the Times or the Green blogs, but carbon
emissions in the US is down, since 2007 by 12%. Lots of reasons.
More natural gas, more wind, less consumption. But it's just odd to me
the climate crisis mongers never seem to recognize this.
In fact, the entire history of the world is one of moving to fuels that
are less carbon intensive. Dung, wood, coal, oil, natural gas
are successively less carbon intensive. So why wouldn't a reasonable
person applaud the extensive deposits of natural gas in the US, and the
substitution it encourages for oil and coal. I think it's partly a
zealotry that ignores the benefits of fossil fuels, like keeping us warm
in the winter, cool in the summer, providing light at night and
mobility to all, you know the small stuff of life, and partly an
arrogance that believes the hoi polloi exist for the elites to manage.