Friday, April 06, 2007

An Excellent Blog for Climate Change

I continue to be impressed by Robert Pielke Sr.'s blog on climate science.

Here is a quote from him on a likely underlying goal of the climate change alarmists: As discussed on Climate Science and Scitizen (e.g. see and see), the underlying reason for this aggressive campaign to focus on the human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as the main culprit is to promote energy policy changes, not to develop an appropriate comprehensive climate policy.

The most recent guest post by Professor Ben Herman of the University of Arizona is also worth reading for anyone who is willing to question some of the predictions and policy prescriptions being bandied about.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

So,...what IS the purpose of the alarmists? Other than new taxes? Follow the money!

Thank you for being a Republican.

Alcibiades said...

On the view of scientific accuracy, the good doctor is skeptical of detailed predicitions. Fine.
But he does not dismiss the real serious issue:
"Should we be concerned about the the addition of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? Certainly. We should do everything reasonable to minimize their input to the atmosphere. But is this path realistically going to eliminate the problem? Can we ever expect to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level where CO2 will actually begin to decrease? Have we considered the cost of such endeavors and weighed it with the realistically expected results? Would a better approach be to put enough dollars, whatever that amount may be, into the development of alternative fuels which could ultimately reduce the injection of CO2 into our atmosphere to a near zero level, and at the same time eliminate our dependence on imported oil? "

The clear linkage of alternative fuels/efficiency requirements as a significant factor in reducing these CO2 emissions seems to be glossed over. This lack of Black and White dichotomies, so favored by the simplists (and Republicans ;) seems to imply somehow that no action is ncessary.
Not the case.
Please re-read without your blindfold.