In my previous post, I went into the philosophy of AGW (catastrophic) and how it emphasizes the destruction of our society for some far-out fantasy. This is the basis of healthy scepticism on CAGW and I think its key to note 2 things in particular:
1) Until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man is “destroying the planet” you can not radically transform society. That is just illogical. So therefore the big mistake in simply believing because we can not prove it wrong. This turn evidential procedures on its head when normally new theories in science have to displace old theories and old ideas. To put it into perspective, to say that the climate changed naturally before man and then suddenly it stopped changing is so silly as to be comical.
2) Any transformation must be quantified and otherwise explained as to why we are making these changes and what it is we are going to accomplish. We can not afford to remake society in such a drastic method as the greens want us to. The UK for instance on their quest are going to spend just short of 1 TRILLION pounds and for this they are not going to save the world. This huge expense is not justified by science, but by a belief that man is inherently evil.
There is always a time for every action under the sun. Just like creation, destruction is a part of life. Our duty as rational people however is to keep these two opposing forms in check in some matter. To put in bluntly: The mistakes of civilizations that killed themselves off due to policies of death or wanton destruction are especially keen. These civilizations instead of innovating and creating simply put destroyed themselves through neglect and/or forced and wanton destruction. This is also seen today with the policy of killing off our modern society with laws that will have only one logical conclusion: the destruction of Western Civilization.
I am going to post this famous line: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
As a note, parts of this post are from an older essay I wrote awhile back which was in reply to a recent Obama initiative at the time to put huge amounts of money into “making cars more efficient” or perhaps “increase their MPG” is the better way to phrase it.
Either way, it’s not that cut and dry. Jevons’ paradox goes back to 1865 when economist William Stanley Jevons noted then that coal efficiency improvements had not just increased the amount of work done, but had actually increased the overall amount of coal used as well. This process is rather well-known in that although increases in efficiency will result in more efficient usage of energy, it will almost always result in more usage of the said resource needed due to lower costs that in turn drives economic progress.
This story is from back in Jan. six monthes ago from today (Jan. 2011) and its worth a relook.
Back in Jan., green organizations pushed the not so news that whales were in danger versus the lives of sailors who were under threat back then from pack ice that had formed rather unexpectantly. Needless to say, this situation worked itself out and the sailors were all rescued by big ice-breakers. But the point was that the article on “whales being threatened” was in the very same waters that these sailors were in the process of dying. In any regard here is the post in its entirety from back then:
Yes, some whales *might cough cough be at risk due to oil exploration. This might not
seem like much of a story, but it contrasts with the story of 348 members of two
fishing ships stuck in pack ice that formed very quickly in the same sea. Is
there even one mention of this occurance in those stories? Nope, not even
First off, this post is going to be very complicated and it deals with computer modeling namely to do with GCM’s (Global Climate Models) and how they get simple things incorrect due to too much usage of “fudge factors.”
Fudge factors despite their name at a basic level are used often in more complex models. The reason is that there is an unknown variable for instance that influences the behavior of the system in known ways, and the best way to predict or otherwise explain this variable is through the creation of a fudge factor which explains the behavior of this variable and for all intensive purposes could be 10 or more variables. The explanation here is that you want the models to match reality and in order to do that, its often required to do this.
First, some basic facts about the CEO who has lead GE
down into the gulley of problems. The data here is straight from ge.com as you can see by the link provided.
Immelt is the ninth chairman of GE, a post he has held since September 7, 2001.
Mr. Immelt has
held several global leadership positions since coming to GE in 1982, including
roles in GE’s Plastics, Appliance, and Healthcare businesses. In 1989 he became
an officer of GE and joined the GE Capital Board in 1997. A couple years later,
in 2000, Mr. Immelt was appointed president and chief executive officer.
Mr. Immelt has
been named one of the “World’s Best CEOs” three times by Barron’s,
and since he began serving as chief executive officer, GE has been named
“America’s Most Admired Company” in a poll conducted by Fortune
magazine and one of “The World’s Most Respected Companies” in polls
by Barron’s and the Financial Times.
Mr. Immelt is
the chair of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He is also
a member of The Business Council.
Mr. Immelt earned a B.A. degree in
applied mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from Harvard
University in 1982. He and his wife have one daughter.
Over next couple of weeks, multiple posts will be moved over here from a variety of sources, so if the amount of content is mind boggling, rest-assured that its temporary for the time being since most of the material like the GE article is already mostly written and only needed some references and filling in to make it work out.