In the next few posts I am going to go through the thoughts in my own head and explain how I’d go about developing a risk mitigation strategy around Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions.
In this post, I’m going to be assuming as true the four incontrovertible points that Skeptics and Believers both (for the most part) agree upon. If you disagree with one of those four incontrovertible points, then obviously you will disagree with my chosen mitigation strategy.
Also, these next few posts will be a response to three comments that were made in the past. One from Agellius, one from Eric, and one from Geoff. Their comments will allow me to discuss risk mitigation in more detail and explain why a risk mitigation approach is an appropriate one for even for AGW Skeptics. (Particularly if they consider themselves to not be in the throes of a religious war.)
Having taken a break, I am ready to and finish the topic of CO2 emissions. The first thing I would like to talk about is the idea that CO2 Emissions and AGW have become more religion then anything else.
You often hear conservatives say this about liberals. “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is just a religion to you people!”
As I stated back in this post (and see also the original source post) this is largely correct.
AGW Skepticism as Religion Too
Another fair question is, why do conservatives make a religion out of it too?
“No they don’t!” you shout, religious fervor in your eyes. 😉
No, seriously, most do. You might personally be an exception. Or you might just not realize you aren’t an exception. Give me a chance to explain and then judge for yourself. Continue reading
Geoff has written two posts recently advancing the common AGW Skeptic argument that since Gore isn’t carbon neutral this proves he doesn’t really believe what he is saying.
I think I’ve made myself very clear that I completely disagree with the logic of Geoff’s arguments because they are arguments by analogy. I think my latest comment sums up my position well: Continue reading
In my last two posts, I first made the case that Anthropogenic CO2 Levels is basically non-controversial and then made the case that our science can’t really connected Global Warming with Anthropogenic CO2 anyhow, even if it’s true.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Doesn’t Matter After All
I believe Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) isn’t the real issue. The real issue is CO2 emissions. We are putting out unsustainable levels of CO2. I’ll define “unsustainable” as “growing with no chance of cutting back without intervention.” Continue reading
In my last post, I finally made the point that is most crucial to me: that CO2 Levels are growing and even AGW Skeptics agree it’s Anthropogenic in nature. I concentrated in that post on why choosing to believe the testimony of an AGW Skeptic on this point is as good as it gets as far as indirect evidence goes. I finished with this statement:
…our science is not up to the task of proving if global warming is man made or not.
Bold claim? Not really. At a minimum science can never “prove” anything. But in this post, I’m going to attempt to strengthen this claim even further. I’m also going to explain why this fact (if true) favors AGW Believers, not Deniers. Continue reading