Economic Strain for Nothing

OK. Let’s pretend that we believe the prognostications of a handful of people who claim that their findings ought to incite transfers of billions of dollars in wealth and change the political and economic structure of the planet. Even with that suspension of disbelief:

Goals on reducing greenhouse gases announced by major industrialized nations are a step forward but not enough to forestall the disastrous effects of climate change by midcentury, U.N. officials said Monday.
Janos Pasztor, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s top climate adviser, said the goals, submitted to the U.N. as part of a voluntary plan to roll back emissions, make it highly unlikely the world can prevent temperatures from rising above the target set at the Copenhagen climate conference in December. …
“It is likely, according to a number of analysts, that if we add up all those figures that were being discussed around Copenhagen, if they’re all implemented, it will still be quite difficult to reach the two degrees,” Pasztor told the Associated Press.

Clearly we’re doomed. Why not just let the people of the world waft along in the blissful ignorance of economic stability for the few decades that we have remaining?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
11 years ago

A “handful of people”? Why the naked dishonesty Justin? Rather ironic for someone criticizing the other side for overstating their case, no? I stopped hoping that you might actually deal with an issue (any issue) evenhandedly. I’ve lowered my standards for this site. Simple honesty in relating the facts, nevermind the arguments, would be a step forward.
In contrast to your “handful of people” argument, the national academies of science for the following contries endorse the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that man is causing enough global warming to prompt serious measures by government to slow the trend: United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, China, India, Russia, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, Brazil, Australia … You get the point.
A “handful of people” huh? Of course, an honest debate on this topic would not begin and end by selectively citing a newspaper article or two about the mistakes of a particular scientist. My guess is that your carpentry skills qualify you no more to opine on the science than my background qualifies me.
That being the case, why not cite one major scientific organization in the world that supports your skepticism?
Let me preview your answer. You won’t do that for two reasons. One, no such organization exists. Two, you aren’t at all interested in the scientific or policy debate. You are simply scoring points against “liberals,” “elites” and “intellectuals”.
March on Justin.

Justin Katz
11 years ago

Hmmm. I must have missed the period during which you were anything other than hostile toward and distrustful of Anchor Rising.
Be that as it may, in order o prevent your confusing others who read so as to understand, I should note that “the handful of people” specifically indicated those who set the target of “two degrees” for the Copenhagen conference. Are you claiming that that specific number was the ocnsensus of every scientific organization that you list?
Even so, you’re skirting my point, which was that human society is clearly not going to achieve the goals that this group (however big) claim to be necessary. I say we focus on helping people to survive the decades they have left by not putting useless burdens on the global economy.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.