I read this article in the NRO, and the author actually made some interesting arguments. 'Basically,' he said, 'I am questioning the premise that [global warming] is a problem rather than an opportunity.' Does he have a point?
Page 3.14
Marrying the line to the curve.
Profile
Maintained by the ScienceBlogs Overlords, Page 3.14 points you in the direction of some of ScienceBlogs' finest offerings, plus the tastiest tidbits of science news and opinion from around the web.
Search
Overlord Brain Food
- Ars Technica
- Boing Boing
- Danger Room
- Engadget
- Gadget Lab
- Game|Life
- explodingdog
- Geekologie
- Gizmodo
- io9
- Life Hacker
- Nothing's Shocking
- Real Climate
- Secret Science Club
- Slashdot
- Tech Crunch
- The Kicker
- The Observatory
- The Presurfer
- The XX Factor
- Threat Level
- Valleywag
- Web Monkey
- Wired Science
- xkcd
Recent Posts
- Fresh Meat, Fresh Data
- H.R. 3699 Threatens Free Publications
- Endless Questions?
- Science for the Future
- Four First Glimpses
- Coaxing the Higgs out of Hiding
- Too Green to Be True
- Burning the Midday Oil
- Fundamentally Too Fast
- The Biodiverse and the Dead
Recent Comments
- Juliet on An Interview with Carl Zimmer of The Loom
- credit loans on Fly Me to the Moon...Again
- crag von baron on H.R. 3699 Threatens Free Publications
- Madison on An Interview with Carl Zimmer of The Loom
- buy dissertation on Seven New Wonders
- Alexis on An Interview with Carl Zimmer of The Loom
- Marta Bundrick on An Interview with Carl Zimmer of The Loom
- Sesli Chat on H.R. 3699 Threatens Free Publications
- afrika mangosu on Ask a ScienceBlogger (anything!)
- plagiarism detector on The Big Quench
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Other Good Stuff
« Periodic Table of the ScienceBlogs, Part 2: Blogs A-C | Main | Periodic Table of the ScienceBlogs, Part 3: Blogs C-D »
Ask A ScienceBlogger, August 30
Category: Ask a ScienceBlogger
Posted on: August 30, 2006 1:32 PM, by Book Club
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/20089




Comments
Wow, what an idiot that article writer is!
Let's start from the top..
Every time we have a summer heatwave invariably the media go crazy with talk of global warming. You would think they would be used to the phenomenon of seasons by now.
Right, because heatwaves in places like Paris that kill thousands happen in almost every seasonal cycle.
Granted, maybe it [global warming] isn’t really happening, and if it is there are strong reasons to doubt that humans have anything to do with it.
He doesn't support either of those contentions with any evidence. AFAIK, the first is undisputably false. The second is strongly held to be false, but there may be room for scientists to be wrong.
People in most parts of the globe should have no objection to a warmer, wetter climate.
Yeah, once the cities on the coast get flooded, atleast we'll have stopped polluting the air and cut down oil consumption due to obsolete land transportation. Boats and rafts ahoy! /snark
Consider the large landmasses in the northern hemisphere, say north of 55 degrees. These are very extreme climates for human habitation. A population distribution map of Canada shows most people live in a belt running along the southern border with the United States. But add global warming and vast regions would become comfortably habitable.
Sure, and this change will be quick, efficient, and non-destructive. Never mind the time required to reconstruct the urban infrastructure, the massive displacement. And what the hundreds of millions of people staying in the low-lying areas in Eastern India & Bangladesh. They'll just fire up their SUVs and minivans and begin the thousands of miles trek to Siberia.
True, there might be some dislocations as crops shifted northward, but so what? Economies change all the time.
The problem is the scale and speed of the change, not the mere vacuous fact that "economies change all the time".
The Al Gore scare film has some dramatic footage of the consequences of a 20-foot rise in sea levels. Most estimates I have read about talk about a three-foot rise at most, but let’s not quibble. In the movie, oceans are seen rushing inland, implying some kind of inundation episode. But the waters will not rise so quickly, if they do at all. And if this threatens our cities one would think some form of sea wall would be in order. The Dutch have been doing this for years, there is no reason why we can’t copy them.
In any case there is no compelling evidence that the seas are rising. The catastrophists warn that small islands and atolls will be the first to go, and the island state of Tuvalu in the Pacific has made a habit of demanding western aid as compensation for this imminent threat to their very existence. It plays well with the liberal guilt complex. But sea-level data from Tuvalu show basically a flat-line average since 1977 — talk about an inconvenient truth!
No cite for the catastrophists who claim that the sea-rise is already happening. Gore makes clear that a huge melt in Greenland and/or Arctic and/or western Antarctica is what will trigger the rise.
Basically I am questioning the premise of the global-warming alarmists, namely that this is a problem rather than an opportunity
It's both. Like Gore says that lot of jobs will be created. But it's only an opportunity if it's acknowledged as a problem i.e. something big has to be done about it.
And besides, I distrust their motives. Many are simply panicky people in need of some form of approaching eschatology.
...
Another motive, sometimes open sometimes not, is to end the free-market system as we know it.
...
At the root of global-warming alarmism is a deathly fear of change.
So Gore's a panicky communist who fears change.
Posted by: Gyan | August 30, 2006 3:47 PM