The fact that the media and popular culture and academia have veered from one panic-inducing disaster scenario to another one which completely contradicts the first one is funny enough in its own right. But reading The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age opened my eyes to an even more significant aspect of this serial crisis-mongering:
The “solutions” prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same.
In both cases, proponents of the theory-du-jour say that in order to stave off disaster, we must reverse the march of civilization, stop our profligate use of carbon-based fuels, cede power and money from the First World to the Third World, and wherever possible revert to a Luddite pre-industrial lifestyle.
Gee, it’s almost like there’s a political agenda behind this stuff.
So, not so much variety in that particular religious experience, huh?
Somewhere in between Cotton Mather and Hugo Drax. Closer to Mather, I hope.
I laugh when people get sad about kids being “horrified” by end-of-the-world scenarios. Kids *love* this stuff.. always have. Adults who buy into world ending scenarios should be encouraged to grow up.
I find both bizzare.
-My- solution to both climate catastrophes would be a massive nuclear program.
If we -have- to have carbon reductions and end up on electric vehicles, nukes are the only ‘alt energy’ thing that scales up far enough.
If we end up needing a shitload of grow lights in a hurry, more electricity is a plus as well.
But you’re forgetting about Peak Yellowcake….
Plenty of thorium laying around. If we can’t mine it from Mars or an asteroid in the 1000 years it’ll take to get to peak-Th, we deserve to fail as a species.
“In both cases …”
Yeah, but if you were in water hot enough to scold you, or cold enough to freeze you, I’d recommend the same solution for both situations.
Scald not scold.
Wait for the government to give you a ladder.
I know as much about science as Chris Gerrib or Bob-l know about economics or Moby Matula knows about . . . well, almost everything. But I do know that the chief pushers of global warming, climate change, etc., are invariably statist “liberals.”
There’s a bumper sticker, “If you want to take my gun, why should I trust you?” I expand that to “If you want to take my gun and lift my wallet, why would I trust you?”–on global warming, climate change or anything else.
This is all just a big failure, by everybody, to appreciate the is-ought problem. It doesn’t actually matter whether the science is right – it can’t dictate the policy response either way.
Just to close the last possible escape route for civilization, it’s time for me to release my new book Climate Stasis: The Coming End of Everything. In it I show how we must end industrial civilization and give all our money to the next species down the food chain, or else the climate will remain exactly the same as it is right now. And with nearly 30,000 deaths per year due to weather of some sort, if it keeps up, the human race will cease to exist (in 25,000 years).
I love Zombie’s reply to my comment on the article at PJM:
Larry J
When the disease diagnosis is 180 degrees out of phase but the recommended (no, demanded) “cure” is exactly the same, then the science is suspect.
January 31, 2012 – 3:27 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Zombie
I was thinking of discussing it in mathematical terms in the essay, but decided against it at the last minute.
What I was gonna say is:
The solution to both crises remains exactly the same, even when the crises are the exact opposite of each other. Rendered algebraically, that would be:
Let x be the solution.
Let a be the first crisis.
Let -a be the second (opposite value) crisis.
Thus, we have, simply
a = x
…and…
-a = x
By the commutative rule, that leads to
a = -a
The only real number that satisfies that equation is zero:
0 = -0
Thus the “crises” are equal to zero, i.e. they don’t exist.
Well, you could have x = a^2. But, their equation is actually simpler: dx/da = 0.