"If a long-term coherent energy plan were formed, there'd be little need to be distracted by fads or arguing the impact of CO2." - Anon from the previous thread drift
CO2 is the flavor of the month because it most easily fits the warmist agenda. It is easy to measure, corellated with economic production and simplistic for the masses. As soon as you realize why China is exempt and what they are doing with that exemption you know everything you need to know about why CO2 is the stalking horse of socialism.
There, did I offend everyone? If not, give me another chance in the comments.
4 comments:
China is exempt from the Kyoto protocols. Is it that they then use this to increase further their cost advantage in manufacturing? If so, I suppose that the US government could view this as promoting an unjustified economic advantage (although since we are not bound by the protocols, that argument may be specious). The US could also simply use the exemption as an excuse not to jump on board.
I guess you could view the manufacturing influence of China as promoting capitalism, although no one would call that an open market. I'm just trying to make the jump to "the stalking horse of socialism"...
I'm rambling. I don't understand the post, although I do take away the message that CO2 is not just about energy policy, and since the legislation is global in nature, said protocols (if inforced) could tilt economies and industries. An example: the steel industry may be inclined to shift to electrochemical routes as at some point as electricity would end up being cheaper than purchasing the necessary CO2 vouchers. Talk about a disruption and price increase.
CO2 seems to be the stalking horse for a lot of things.
I am not educated on the matter enough to develope an authoratative opininion about global warming. However, I believe one of the man "proofs" for it is that the ice caps are melting faster than they have been historically? Doesn't it make sense that the rate of melting functions exponentially? You have a smaller mass in warmer surroundings? It proves that there is global warming but not that it is different than any other time the globe warmed.In reverse it would work the same way. As the ice mass got larger it would influence the system exponentially.
what exactly is the "warmist agenda?"
i tend to give credence to the idea of human caused global warming(not that we're the only cause, but likely the major cause), mainly because it is so easily correlated. we know co2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that fossil fuels put off a lot of co2 when burned, and we know that we've burned a real shitload of fossil fuels over the past century.
btw, like your blog robert. found my way over here from ben's bubble blog.
The warmist agenda is the desire for social justice through the mechanism of wealth redistribution. Gobal Climate Change is merely the most recent excuse. The problem with CO2 is that we have evidence going back millions of years for epochs and their temperatures and we have more recent data that doesn't corellate. Using 1946 to 1998 is a form of cherrypicking. When Al Gore calls 6 of the 10 warmest years in the last two centuries as in the 1990s he's cherrypicking. None of those years would make it into the top 7500 of the last 10,000 years.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words. I don't get many compliments so they stand out.
Post a Comment