|
|
|
« War News | Main | Must See TV » March 22, 2004PerspectivesHaving just reread my piece on Social Security and the need to fix it sooner rather than later, I'm forced to wonder if those who support the Kyoto Treaty see the irony: we both see an impending disaster and want to do something about it now rather than later. There are major differences regarding the scope of the problems and the proposed solutions, of course, but there seems to be a marked similarity in outlook nonetheless. For all our differences, it appears that we're probably as alike as we are different. Clearly I need to rethink my position on Social Security reform. ;)Posted at March 22, 2004 01:05 PM
Comment policyI apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog. Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI think there is one very significant difference: the Kyoto treaty would have no detectable effect on the earth's temperature in 100 years, if one uses the data that its proponents rely on. In other words, Kyoto is a trojan horse. Its purpose is to put in place a mechanism which can then be used to make the cuts that the models show are really required - cuts which would destroy the economy of the first world. The other purpose is to transfer vast amounts of wealth out of the United States. Shortly China is expected to have more automobiles than the US, but it would have been exempt from Kyoto requirements. India was also exempt. In addition, the science of global warming has very poor predictive abilities, because climate forecasting is not yet well developed. It is possible that it will not be possible to forecast, if climate turns out to be chaotic, like weather. The pronouncements of the IPCC (UN's climate committee) that one always hears are based on the executive summary, which is a political document. The scientific document has huge caveats, because of the uncertainties. A climatologist friend of mine used to be an anthropogenic global warming supporter when his focus was on modelling. When he shifted to paleoclimatology (which contains information absolutely necessary to calibrate climate forecasts), he changed his mind. The data was crap - extrapolations from extrapolations from assumptions. On the other hand, whatever your social security reforms may be, they are probably somewhat more accurate than climatology, although anything reaching out more than a couple of decades should be very suspect. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at March 22, 2004 11:54 PM John, check the category of this post: it's supposed to just be amusing. My point was not that Kyoto is any more valid or that the Social Security issue is any less valid, only that I find it funny that we have two impending problems, one the right wants to do something about and one the left wants to do something about. There are just some gross similarities to how both sides approach the issue. You'll also note that I joked that I would have to rethink my position on SS, not on Kyoto. Posted by: Andrew at March 23, 2004 05:27 AM I never miss an opportunity to trash Kyoto. Sorry :-) John Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at March 23, 2004 11:54 PM |
