The disastrous hurricanes of recent years have become the poster children of global warming.
But Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental policy expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wondered whether the billions of dollars of damage was caused by more intense storms or more coastal development.
After analyzing decades of hurricane data, Pielke concluded that rising levels of carbon dioxide had little to do with hurricane damage. Rather, it boiled down to a simple equation: Build more, lose more.
“Everything has been put on the back of carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide cannot carry that weight,” he said.
Pielke’s analysis, published last month in the journal Natural Hazards Review, is part of a controversial movement that argues global warming over the rest of this century will play a much smaller role in unleashing planetary havoc than most scientists think.
Ouch. There goes their funding, down the toilet. Practical thinking is not going to establish a super duper, world-controling government agency, full of cushy jobs with unlimited power.
"Practical thinking” also doesn’t support the Left’s worldview of a level playing field, where socialism rules. “Practical thinking"- that GW is not MM and therefore can’t be fixed by simply imposing massive, debilitating, and grossly expensive restrictions on industrialized nations- is not on the agenda of radical environmentalists and socialist ideologues.
Not to mention, Obama’s Left not being bright enough to look a gifthorse in the mouth.
Once upon a time, being able to properly come out and say “Look, building your McMansion on a sand bar isn’t a very bright thing to do” was a winning issue for the Left.
Now, what passes for The Cult, looks to their Messiah to change the weather.
Pielke acknowledges that there are enormous political hurdles to overcome with his strategy, and he recognizes that his views have made him and like-minded researchers the new pariahs of global warming.
“I’ve been accused of taking money from Exxon or being a right-wing hack,” he said.
And keep in mind, this is an AGW proponent. His sin is that his ideas for amelioration are politically incorrect. I can’t remember whether that calls for stoning, shunning or burning at the stake.
EDIT - I especially love the hurricane damage analysis stuff. There is a basic principle, founded in geological processes, that states “If you live near the water, sooner or later, the water is going to come for a visit.” I have no problem with people wanting to live on a hurricane-prone coast below sea level, or building expensive homes on a sandbar. Their decision, not mine. I do, however, have a really big problem with being asked to pay for their self-inflicted losses when the inevitable happens.
This is one of the conversations the man made GW believers will not let you have. It is the conversation about the most cost effective approach to dealing with the issue. Even assuming GW is affected by man, is it best to basically keep doing what we are doing so we can continue to have a wealthy society that can afford to adapt and continue to search for answers or do we drastically cut back our standard of living and hope that we can actually have some significant impact on GW. To cut back our standard of living and the wealth of future generations in exchange for a possible reduction in average temperature of .5 degrees 50 years from now is not a tradeoff that makes any sense to me. It is similar to the other conversation the man made GW believers will not let you have about the potential benefits that may come from a higher average temperature.
“Unlike those who argue that humans are not warming the globe, the new skeptics accept the scientific consensus on the causes and effects of climate change. Their differences are over what to do about it.”
If these new skeptics agree that global warming is manmade, doesn’t that exclude them from consideration here at PowerLine? I’m confused.
Only an intellectually bankrupt person like yourself, Roy, would try to claim that a sarcastic remark like impeachbush’s was something more.
Try not to be so desperate next time.
Duendecillo:
Pot, Kettle, Black.
You’re quite the hypocrite, aren’t you?
No, I find that there are too many gaps in your store of knowledge. I’m having to explain too much basic stuff to you. You take this attitude like you know something and after awhile, I learn you don’t.
You also exhibited a willingness to “play the race card” in a situation with absolutely no racism whatsoever.
Only an intellectually bankrupt person like yourself, Roy, would try to claim that a sarcastic remark like impeachbush’s was something more.
Try not to be so desperate next time.
Duendecillo:
Pot, Kettle, Black.
You’re quite the hypocrite, aren’t you?
No, I find that there are too many gaps in your store of knowledge. I’m having to explain too much basic stuff to you. You take this attitude like you know something and after awhile, I learn you don’t.
You also exhibited a willingness to “play the race card” in a situation with absolutely no racism whatsoever.
You’re a waste of time.
You’re worse than a wast of time. My store of knowledge is is quite fine; I certainly don’t need an ignoramus, like yourself, to explain anything to me. And don’t try to pin your bigotry and hypocrisy on me. You’re the one who resorted to a cheap ethnic slur to try to get the upper hand in an argument. Nothing like that had even been suggested until you went there first. I can’t even remember the last time somebody tried to pull that crap on me, but it must have been at least 15 years ago. I don’t lightly make accusations like that. In fact, I never have before. You must be even stupider than I thought if you think for a second that I would let some garbanzo like you try to make feel like a foreigner in my own country. Do you actually think for second that I am supposed to let you get away with that crap???
I suspect that your anonymity on this forum confers upon you a degree courage that you lack in real life.
You don’t even have the stones to apologize. You make me sick.
