climate fantasy

Unbelievable! A group of 16 people have published an article, questioning the foundations of man induced climate change.
These people include professors, CEOs, journalists etc. and they clam that since the last 10 years havent shown any real warming, the whole CO2 thing must be a crock.

The usual garbage is pulled out: No evidence of a direct link between CO2 and global warming (Ive never seen any concrete evidence that gravity will work tomorrow, but it doesnt mean Im seriously doubting it), claims that we are currently pursuing an "aggressive policy of reducing greenhouse gasses" (we're not, we're asleep at the wheel and are increasing CO2 emissions every year), that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas (crude oil is also a naturally occurring substance but its pretty harmful if significant quantities are present in the wrong place) and that climate policies are costing us a lot of money each year.

All bull.

We're simply ignoring the issue, hoping it will go away. And these dangerous impostors are lulling us into a false sense of security. And one day we (or our kids most likely) will look back at our time and wonder why we behaved in such an illogical way.
Compare it to what we now think about the debt most European countries are in. When the debt was accrued, it seemed like the most normal thing in the world. In fact, any government that DIDNT join in, was virtually stealing from its own population, and surely clueless about world economics. Now however, we wonder how we could have let it get this far, how we could have been so fast asleep at the wheel, and how we're going to repay that disastrous mountain of debt...

We can now relatively easily change the way we behave, reducing the effects we have on the environment drastically. It will take some initial investment, but in the long run, Im sure we'll all feel better if the likes of Iran, Saudy Arabia, Irak and other unstable countries are less essential to our success.
In the long run (the usual prediction is 5 - 10 years) it will actually be beneficial to economic growth...

But we need to get people to accept 5 - 10 years of slight reduction in growth first. Thats difficult, as its longer that an election period. That means that in political terms its an impossibility.
Imagine this:
Party A is elected. The brave leadership does what it takes, and starts us on the road to free us of carbon dependency. They will rule over 4-8 years of less growth, ensuring that party B is eventually elected.
Party B reaps the rewards, claiming the success is their own.

Party A would have to be stupid to do this right? Unless the population, the voters, would really believe that Party A did the right thing. This however is very difficult, especially to maintain for a long period of time. People having to postpone buying their new toy or having to accept a year or two of slightly less luxury is no light matter!

So what if a group of experts were to cast doubt on the necessity of the 5 - 10 year sacrifice... People would be even harder to convince, because some time in that 5 - 10 year period, the feeling that it might all be for nothing is going to get too strong to ignore.
It would ensure that no party would be able to convince the public to back such a plan, thus ensuring that real progress in this matter is halted.

So now we have a group of experts doing just this.

But hang on, maybe they are right!! Maybe the whole climate stuff is garbage!

Ok, go to Beijing for a few days and tell me that emissions are not a problem. Ignore CO2 for a moment, ignore all the computer models. Just tell me how you feel if you spend a day in nature, or if you spend a day in a crowded industrialized city. It doesnt take rocket science to predict what the collective effect of our emissions is. In a way its a bit like those people who've smoked 2 packs a day all their lives, and then sue the tobacco companies saying "I didnt know it was bad for me". Come on, who are you kidding?

But what pisses me off most of all is that this time the so called experts are playing an extra dirty trick.
By invoking their professor titles, their CEO pasts and other credentials, they are claiming to be independent subject matter experts.

They are neither.

Two of them (Edward David and Roger Cohenhave) have past careers at Exxon, two others (Burt Rutan and Jack Schmitt) are in the space ship industry. None of the professors signing this have published any relevant scientific literature in peer reviewed journals, and Claude Allegre (the first signer) is a known and heavily critisised climate change denier.

Out of 16 people signing this with an impressive signature, 12 are not climate experts, 9 have clear ties to the petrochemical industry and none are recognised subject matter experts.

So why is this so dangerous?
Well, I dont know if you've ever heard of the Milgram experiment? Its a study done in the 60s to explore how people react to perceived experts. In short, test subjects were supposed to give electric shocks to another person (an actor who made deliberate mistakes at a memory exersise, triggering the test subject to shock him for each mistake). The actor (in a different room, so out of sight of the test subject) would scream and, as shocks increased in intensity, clearly signal great bodily discomfort. When the test subjects wanted to stop as a result of this, someone in a lab coat (ie, someone recognisable as an expert) would tell them to continue. The vast majority of people kept on delivering shocks to the actor until the actor faked death by heart attack.

We are all susceptible to such effects. We cant be experts on everything, so we rely on the expertise of others. And we’ve been trained to recognize certain tell tale signs that someone is an expert. Being a professor for instance.

That’s why its soooo dangerous what these people are doing. By giving people reasonable doubt about the need for rapid change in our climate policies, they block any chance at success. And the chances are that in 10, 20 or perhaps 50 years time, we or our children will look back and wonder how we could have been so stupid.

Just for the sake of argument btw, lets say there is no climate problem. Than in 50 tears time we’ll laugh and still enjoy fresh air, less diesel fumes, more efficient (=cheaper) cars etc etc. Its not as if there is a downside! The other way around though...