The next [article] is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
I invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:
Is global warming happening?
Is it anthropogenic?
Can we do anything about it?
The abstract: Crichton's "detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease."
To those who think the global financial crisis is serious, or those in the US who are aware of the pending Social Security & Medicare crises, all three combined pale in comparison to the cost of remediating so-called global warming.
There are two different questions that stand out for me, here:
1) The integrity of science, which is a concern I share with Michael [and probably you],
2) The basis of choice, in the face of risk.
Re' (1) -- Michael's seemed most concerned about how it compromises the integrity and credibility of science in society, when something is declared to be "proven", before it really is. Like "nuclear winter", global warming has so many variables to evaluate, most of which we cannot test, that "proof" is impractical, if even possible. To then say it's "proven" impacts us all.
But... like "nuclear winter"... what's the price of taking the risk?
A massive chuck of Antartica fell into the ocean. The global warming analysts predicted this. As far as I'm concerned, they still don't have "proof" of global warming... but they do have "evidence".
Besides, if we invest in solar/wind/geothermal, we'll still have costs of maintenance (like we do now), without the costs of fuel. ROI?
Thanks for thinking for yourself 🙂
-- Doug Ivison