View Single Post
Old 12-11-2019, 01:27 PM   #7947 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,256
Thanks: 21,192
Thanked 6,434 Times in 4,011 Posts

Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
I went on a Fireside Chats with Dennis Prager binge, and the 1 thing he mentioned on the subject (so far in what I've listened to) is that if the problem is so dire, why is practically nobody acting in a manner that reflects that reality? Beachfront property should be on a fire sale if it's so threatened.

Admittedly, effects that are 100 years away won't necessarily be reflected in the here and now. Still, the changes encountered over the last 100 years are likely to continue into the future, and there's a question as to why those similar changes that hardly anyone noticed will become a huge catastrophe in the future. For instance, sea level has risen something like 10" in the past 100 years, and is projected to rise similarly in the next 100 years. When very old people share what was the worst thing to happen to them in their lifetime, they don't mention the 1 degree rise in temperature and the 10" sea level rise.

That doesn't mean there won't be problems from an accelerated climate change, only that those that hype it to the forefront of humanity's problems are either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly corrupt (I tend to assume ignorance in the absence of compelling evidence of corruption).

BTW- my other musing on the subject was in regards to the political leaning of the scientific community. A Google search brought up this HuffPo article that said "Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats."

Science, like reporting, is supposed to deliver the facts and leave the interpretation and values to the listeners. With biases like these, what chance do we have of just getting the facts?

I find this subject incredibly boring because nobody will be talking about it 20 years from now. I'd rather be talking about genetic engineering, and how that's going to mess with everything because it's a frontier we've barely scratched the surface on. The ethical debate on if your car should be forced to get 40 MPG instead of 30 will pale in comparison to designing your children to order, for instance, and the further class division it will produce.
If you consider that an undergraduate,graduate,or post-doc can maintain a 4.0-GPA,graduate with honors,and become a Rhodes Scholar,while failing to grasp 10% of curriculum,there's a potential for things to fall between the cracks even with the best and the brightest.
President Trump maintained a C-average at Penn State,which implies that he didn't understand at least 30% of his course work.
James Hansen,as far as Climate science goes,was considered one of only three scientists to actually understand the 'Big-Picture,'climate-wise.
Frederick Lanchester 'invented' some of the most important concepts of aerodynamics,although he was dismissed by all aerodynamicists of his day,except Ludwig Prandtl,who was the only one intelligent enough to realize where Lanchester was coming from.Today,every race car on Earth uses Lanchester's technology,yet probably no one has ever heard his name mentioned.
I believe that this is how things will shake out with climate science.We'll have the Dr.Seuss 'Lorax' scenario,where capitalists will vie to be the one to cut down the last Truffulla tree,while the entire planet's flushed down the toilet.We're the most stupid species to ever emerge from the primordial slime.
Photobucket album:
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
Natalya (12-12-2019), NeilBlanchard (12-12-2019)