You need to log in to create posts and topics.

The Rise of Hysterical Left Wingnuts

Listing examples of extreme weather events as evidence of AGW is persuasive, but unscientific as well as unproductive.  The basic problem with the global warming groups' argument is that it invokes the classic "band-aid on the arterial bleed" scenario.  It's not that AGW is occurring, it's the underlying principle of WHY it is occurring in the first place: which is an imbalance placed upon this planet by the over-population by the human species.  EXAMPLE:  ALL of our yearly, anthropogenically produced CO2 could be absorbed by 2 billion hectares of forest.  However, this is exactly how much forest humankind has destroyed since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Too many humans, too little forest.  We need to find a balance, not a new hysteria.


It is not the examples of extreme weather alone that makes it evidence.  There have always been examples of extreme weather throughout history and even pre-history.  It is the accelerating frequency and new predictability that weather events are likely to be extreme that gives the examples weight.

Global warming groups have many arguments, not just one.

No one seriously questions the unsustainability of the present situation.  No one seriously believes that band-aid efforts will be sufficient.  It is true that humankind has destroyed far too much forest.  China is aggressively addressing this problem with its reforestation campaigns to include urban forestation.  How precisely would you achieve balance otherwise?



It's statistical analysis of extreme weather events in total which scientifically shows a connection between AGW and weather events.

The idea that it's as simple as planting trees is rejected by the scientific literature on the subject.  Trees impact the albedo (lowering it) which increases temperature.  Other effects from trees mostly work in the same (increasing temperature) direction.  So the scientific answer is we don't know how it would balance out but it's certainly not a simple solution.  


Specifically, the underlying cause of AGW (the arterial bleed) is over-population of the world by the human species.  The pragcap connection is that reducing population reduces robust economic growth probability - and therein lies the big conundrum for which I have no answer.

How would you reduce population of the earth in a way that is not morally repugnant?

One might start through education that the underlying cause of AGW is the imbalance caused by human over-population.

You have not answered the question.  IF we grant that the underlying cause of AGW is the imbalance caused by human over-population, how would you propose rectifying the situation in a way that would not be morally repugnant?

Back to the original post:

Let me say it upfront: I am no hysterical lefty. I despise both DEM and GOP.
And if you put a gun to my head, I'll go with the GOP.

But here is the thing:
This is not about party politics, it is about risk management.

I heard it once from a wise guy (I don't remember his name right now:) )
Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.

No scientist (in contrast to politicians) is so arrogant to say that he knows exactly what happens next year or 10 years from now.
But science has already made it 100% clear that there is a huge, real risk.
This is all about risk management.

Can't say it better than these guys:

Now a couple of questions to climate-skeptic friends on pragcap:
1- What bullet-proof evidence is out there which indicates that there is no risk, or the implications are minimal?
2- What evidence could possibly make you change your mind about the risks and their implications?

I agree it is not about party politics; it is about risk management.  Like you, at least until relatively recently, I would have gone with the GOP, but they have lost all credibility on a number of fronts.  Your link should be required reading.


So after all the fancy talk, the A in AGW still stands for anthropogenic, which indicates that there are too many of us.   Explain to me how education to reduce the population doesn't answer the question and/or is morally repugnant.