Chad at CCK has responded to my most recent post. I note only that his primary response is 1) to declare the existence of a scientific consensus (without any hint of what that consensus is or where we might look for evidence of it), 2) to declare that I am outside that consensus, and 3) on that basis call me wacky. Same old Archy Bunker, different side of the isle. In addition he alleges, without evidence, that I am influenced by a lot of conservatives whom he apparently considers to be very wrong. On the basis of that unfounded and in fact false allegation, he concludes an ad hominem fallacy: because I believe what Rush believes, therefore I am wrong.
In fact I do not know what Rush says because I do not read him. Off hand, I have no idea what Powerline, or Michelle Malkin think about global warming. As far as a scientific consensus, I do believe that one largely exists regarding two facts: 1) the world is in a warming period; and 2) human emissions of greenhouses gases have something to do with. Some scientists do question both ideas, but I do not. On the basis of what I can gather from Science, Nature, New Scientist, and the science reporting in such places as the New York Times and the Washington Post, I think both of the ideas above are well-established. So what have I said that is so wacky? Here is my argument:
1) In the near future, the human population will continue to increase and at the same time become more affluent (especially in the largest two nations, India and China).
2) Population growth and increasing affluence will result in higher energy use, and therefore in greater green house emissions over the next several decades.
3) In the short term, the only way to reduce greenhouse emissions would be to radically restrict or even reverse economic growth in both developed and developing nations.
4) The Kyoto treaty aimed at modest decreases in greenhouses emissions in developed nations alone; Europe and Japan have far exceeded the Kyoto targets.
5) Developing nations are far less likely to retard their own economic growth, that is why they were not covered by Kyoto in the first placed.
6) Therefore, (based on the current situation) green house gases are going to keep growing and contributing whatever they contribute to global warming over the next several decades.
Now I fully admit that this argument is open to challenge. But its hardly wacky, and I defy Chad to show that any one of the 6 steps in that argument is outside some scientific consensus. I have read a great deal by advocates of Kyoto, and many of them insist that Kyoto did not go near far enough: we need to cut back much more to have any real chance of cutting back on global warming. That is in fact what I am arguing. I just think that is no real chance that we are going to do that. Maybe that is a great human tragedy in the making. But just because an idea is inconvenient doesn't mean its not true.
Would that Chad could find the time respond to my argument, instead of just making himself feel better by calling me wacky. So far, he has not come close to making any arguments of his own.
Recent Comments