Mario wrote: > What are the economic implications of the political demands that we turn > only the western economies on their head because of something that its > strongest proponents say only that "most of it is very likely"? > Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:30:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
The field of Economics is orders of magnitude more speculative and uncertain than any branch of science. Scientists do not speak with an air of certainty. Only politicians and ideologues do. Mario responds: Thanks for making my point, that scientists do not speak with an air of certainty. Yet, on the global warming issue, left leaning ideologues in the US, the UN and elsewhere, like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri and the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, for example, are using what some scientists have said and are speaking with an air of certainty about what needs to be done about it. Politicians make economic determinations that are "speculative and uncertain" because they have no way to gage for certain the weighted aggregate actions and responses of entire populations to economic and other policy prescriptions. When scientists disagree the politicians also have no way to sort out what to do, and this is where ideologues step in and suggest solutions that will benefit them. This is the case with people like Al Gore and GE. Thus the politicians are likely to cause untold harm to the most productive sections of the world historically, the western economies, by insisting they roll back their economies to address ONLY THE "MAN-MADE" PORTION of global warming when there is a growing list of countries who have declined to participate, which now include Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, plus every other less developed country. These countries obviously believe that the Climate Change Lobby's policy suggestions will cause more harm to them than good. Santosh wrote: The quote says "unprecedented in the past 1,300 years" Here is the correct graph, which goes back to 200 A.D.: http://tinyurl.com/FactsRefutingMario Mario responds: Surely, as a scientist who does "...not speak with an air of certainty.." you are not suggesting that estimates of global temperatures going back to 200 AD have an "air of certainty" when scientists are still arguing about how to measure global temperatures in the 21st. Century: http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/24556/GISS_Hansen_Caught_Doctoring_More_Data.html Santosh wrote: The global temperature in 2005 was the highest ever. In 2007 it was the second highest ever, as high as 1998 when it was anomalously high because of El Nino. Mario responds: While your selected facts are correct, here is the entire picture of recent years from all the major sources, showing that the recent trend lines are clearly inconveniently downwards, albeit slightly.. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf My point is that the recent trend certainly cannot be honestly described, as the NASA report you posted did, as "proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented". Santosh wrote: Latif has been completely misrepresented by the Newscientist journalist and the global warming deniers. Here is the relevant quote from his talk: QUOTE It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know...when the temperature cools...alright?...relative to the present level. Alright? Unquote. Mario responds: Alright! Alright! Mojib-bhai. I get it, yaar. You, and Rajendra-bhai at the UN, have been saying for years that the earth WILL burn like hell if we don't turn only the western economies on their heads, and now you are saying that it MAY cool for a COUPLE OF DECADES? A COUPLE OF DECADES?! Good one, Mojib. So, what do you want us to do, hanh, Mojib-bhai? You may have heard by now that Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, plus every other less developed country are not going to do what your side wants, alright? Once again, let me get to my only point to Goanetters: Does it make sense for only the western countries to dial back their economies several decades in a speculative attempt to halt only THE MAN-MADE PORTION of what some scientists think is ADDING to global warming. Other scientists think that the MAN-MADE PORTION is so small that turning only the western economies on their heads, without Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, plus every other less developed country, is an ideological exercise in futility. I am still not sure, because I have still not bought one side of the debate hook, line and sinker like some people on Goanet. As the only voice on Goanet for reason, truth and peace, I am keeping an open mind. The rest of you can make up your own minds.
