tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post2378701369827497992..comments2023-10-22T05:51:58.898-04:00Comments on Soob: The Other Conference On Climate ChangeJay@Soobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-47698291770203633152008-03-07T20:53:00.000-05:002008-03-07T20:53:00.000-05:00"they didn't put on a conference because they were..."they didn't put on a conference because they were genuinely worried about overreaction to climate change,"<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that. Now tell me with a straight face that the proponents of Global Warming ignore scientific opposition on the pure basis of the betterment of man kind. Or are they just as concerned for funding and personal redemption? <BR/><BR/>Sorry, chap. The Heartland Institute may have their own ax to grind but do you really believe that every scientist there was roped in by Conservative ideals? Every scientist is a shill for Big Oil? <BR/><BR/>Or more realistically, the scientists that engaged in the NYC conference are a tad worried about the "consensus" and so tossed their lot unto a vehicle that might deliver them to some semblance of recognized opposition.Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-13572886632367012742008-03-07T08:07:00.000-05:002008-03-07T08:07:00.000-05:00"What political entity drove the New York Conferen..."What political entity drove the New York Conference?"<BR/><BR/>Heartland, obviously - they didn't put on a conference because they were genuinely worried about overreaction to climate change, they put on a conference because climate change "fixes" endanger their agenda, which according to their website is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953649845499754508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-20056665738879065542008-03-06T20:41:00.000-05:002008-03-06T20:41:00.000-05:00Great comment Adrian.In line with your Romm perspe...Great comment Adrian.<BR/>In line with your Romm perspective, one could (and some have) argue that without what's construed as anthropogenic climate change human kind could, instead, be facing the initial period of an ice age. A bit different perspective than the typical "end o' times" scenario.<BR/><BR/>In line with [But you seem to be saying that "we don't know everything, so better be cautious and not do anything."]<BR/><BR/>No. My argument entails "we're not at all sure what's inducing global warming, nor are we certain it will persist. And so we shouldn't be passing uncertainties off as "facts" and we certainly shouldn't be designing policy around such." <BR/><BR/>"We also do not fully understand the workings of the human body, a very complex system. However luckily doctors go ahead and do their thing anyways."<BR/><BR/>I'd challenge that we understand more than enough about the human body to enact a system of medicine that is as often than not successful at preserving life. <BR/><BR/> "I trust scientific conferences run by scientific thinktanks, not thinktanks with specific policy agendas that just happen to coincide with what they have concluded science believes..."<BR/><BR/>Heh. I don't trust any "scientific think tank" that refuses to allow "disagreeable" science into their realm of study. What political entity drove the New York Conference?Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-33176872908492580872008-03-03T19:59:00.000-05:002008-03-03T19:59:00.000-05:00Your conclusions don't follow from your reasoning ...Your conclusions don't follow from your reasoning that I can see. It's true we don't fully understand the global climate system. Climate change could actually be much worse than we think, as Joseph Romm <A HREF="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/" REL="nofollow">argued recently</A>. Thus if uncertainty is based on our lack of total understanding of the system, it could be just as possible that climate change is <I>worse</I> than currently thought as it is that it's "not a crisis" as Heartland definitively proclaims (no uncertainty there). But you seem to be saying that "we don't know everything, so better be cautious and not do anything." Am I reading too much into your post?<BR/><BR/>We also do not fully understand the workings of the human body, a very complex system. However luckily doctors go ahead and do their thing anyways.<BR/><BR/>From the Heartland Institute's website, they look like a bunch of kooks. On their lefthand column they have an "Al Gore snowjob" picture - not generally an indication of a serious policy thinktank. I trust scientific conferences run by scientific thinktanks, not thinktanks with specific policy agendas that just happen to coincide with what they have concluded science believes...Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953649845499754508noreply@blogger.com