• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« The Pace is Quickening | Main | Inside CRN, Part 1 »

December 05, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8a69e200d83429d50253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Changing Scientific Opinion:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Phillip Huggan

The 1950s discovery of past mass die-offs of plant species would have been conclusive enough for me. Accelerated climate change would halt all scientific research worldwide. No big oil CEOs read this blog, but some of the 800 million western consumers responsible for exacerbating climate change risks do. If highlighting these risks causes one CRNblog reader to kick Royal Dutch Shell or Exxon out of their investment portfolio, or buy a vehicle smaller than an SUV for their next purchase, or even put some insulation in their attics, then the risks have gone down some derivative of 1/800,000,000.

Rip

So basically, no amount of reduction in emissions will make much of a difference. And all the money spent (or given up as a result of emission restrictions) on proposals like the Kyoto treaty and other plans to reduce emissions over the course of 15-20 years, is also a waste of time. Am I wrong here?


It would be interesting to divert that money/research directed towards proposals such as the Kyoto treaty to developing molecular manufacturing. Honestly though, I believe the world at large would never believe MM to be possible in our lifetimes. After all, look at how useless human-size robots of today are! How could we ever manage nano-scale robots? (That's their reasoning, not mine.) :P

michael vassar

It seems to me that an article like this one actually provides us with less reason for cutting CO2 emissions. The younger dryas happened (probably, given mainstream assumptions) without human intervention. If the climate is that chaotic, we would be better off spending our money to master it rather than to try to avoid changing it on the assumption that no change is the default.
It also makes this hurricane season much more forboding.

The comments to this entry are closed.