In an unbelievable turn of events, the New York Times, the most openly hostile newspaper to the views of anybody remotely conservative, has published an article today that looks at the social science behind global warming and delves into some psychological reasons for the hysteria. And of course, what would a decent article be is we did not include some fact-busting and questioning of the unquestionable, Al Gore.

John Tierney conveys the sentiments about global warming that I think many conservative-types have:

“’Many people concerned about climate change,’ Dr. Sunstein says, ‘want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.’

“Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting — or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.”

And:

“The planet has indeed gotten warmer, and it is projected to keep warming because of greenhouse emissions, but this process is too slow to make much impact on the public.”

“When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.”

As a result, activists hijack the cause, as Al Gore has done, and made things appear to be much worse than they are to push a certain set of policies on a gullible public that is unknowing of the facts. Anyway, it’s a very good article, John Tierney writes good pieces anyway.

On another note, if we use such great science to measure the effects of greenhouse gases on warming, why are carbon reduction goals always always always a percentage divisibile by five (e.g. 30%, 45%, etc.)? Look, I may have gone to Tech for international affairs, but I did my fair share of science, hell I was an engineering student for my first year and a half there. Not once in my calculations did a number come out to a five divisor. Not once. If we are truly looking to stem the tide with minimal economic damages, don’t you think we would have at least one 26% goal in there? Just a thought. And this goes for all sectors, we see it in government all the time. What is the obsession with whole numbers on the fives?

Enough for now, read the Tierney article, it’s something to think about. And we can solve the global warming issue without hysteria and radical economic effects, as the worldwide environmental protocols and calls for a heavier government hand in the private sector would produce.

Comments(0)

OK, I’m sure you have all heard by now, Al Gore won the Noble Peace Prize. Big surprise. Here’s a few notes.

One, a Peace Prize for environmental awareness work? Explain. Explain to me how Al and the UN IPCC have helped stopped the genocide in Darfur, how they have limited conflict in Africa, how they have worked towards sectarian conflict resolution in Iraq—just throwing it out there.

Does this put him in line for a Presidential run? Even if it does, he has no shot. The machine is in motion. Hillary will be their nominee, barring a Howard Dean-esque meltdown. However, I do feel a little vindicated by the media for even suggesting it, as I brought it up at the beginning of the year.

Other notes are much better put by Patrick Michaels, who just happens to be a Noble winner from today as well. He is a Cato fellow and member of the UN IPCC. Check it out!

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8744

Comments(0)

A tad old, but still a good one!

You know, I don’t know if a giant concert with seven cities having unbelievably energy-inefficient stages lit and firing away for hours on end is the best way to fight climate change. Promoters say it is to raise awareness. Look, people in the Western world are aware. We never hear the end of it. Why don’t we put that money and energy into more productive things.

How about screwing musicians and putting that money, effort, and “carbon footprint”, which is huge by the way, and no matter what people say, it won’t have much of an effect — remember FarmAid, the African concerts, yeah, same idea, the result will be the same. People will not turn off their cars, you will not see a gradual, less a mass exodus from the suburbs to cities, you will not see people turning off the TVs and computers. These are habits, they need to be changed in other ways than a rock concert. Like everyone listens to freakin’ Bono, yippee. And I am so glad that Madonna with her private jet multicar entourage can sing a song, look like a whore, and lecture me on how to reduce my carbon footprint and be a good world citizen.

But enough bitching, I am a solutions man. So how about this. Ticketholders, donate to a cause, because presumably you are all there because of your deep moral feelings on the issue. How about donating to or starting organizations like Trees Atlanta, or encouraging initiatives in rooftop greening, such as planting trees, shurbs, and grass on rooftops. These are measures that should help with the urban heat island phenomenon seem here in Atlanta and in cities all over the world.

Another solution would be putting funds together to investigate and start-up light rail systems, from suburbs to urban areas. And let’s do this in the private sector, with a little government oversight, just to help keep costs down. The private sector is key. When people invest, they get rich when businesses succeed, so there is incentive to ride, incentive to innovate. More importantly though, let’s use those resources to get the message across where it may have not been heard before, Asia and Africa. Let nip an emissions or “climate change crisis” ( I feel dirty speaking like that) in the bud. Raise awareness there on a smaller scale. Change the norms in emerging nations, hit that first generation of industrialites, set the bar for future development.

Bottom line, we need to change habits and innovate, then share and spread that knowledge with Asia and Africa. China pollutes more than anyone, sorry to break it to everyone, but the US can no longer be the sole bearer of responsibility. India is not far behind. Let’s change that. Let’s begin initiatives that are 50 years too late in the West and use these same ideas over there before it gets bad. I had an idea that fizzled in my words there, but I think you get where I am going.

The answer is not in prohibitive climate treaties that are mearly a band-aid and a promise that no one can or will keep (see Kyoto Protocol). It is not in mandating companies in one industry spend their profits on advancement of another instead of improving their own (see big oil and “windfalls” mandated for use in alternative energy research). It is not about rhetoric from politicians, or carbon offsets, or legislative mandates. It is about you, me, and the guy next to you. The answers lie in planting a tree, cooling our cities, using less energy, installing a few curly lightbulbs, telecommuting a few more times, piling into the car to go out like when we were in high school. If everyone that can do this does, we win in the long run. You must demand change from the private sector, that is what is will make bigger industry change. The market works, let’s make it work for us.

Comments(0)