Nuclear War As A Means To Stop Climate Change
It's just one essay by just one kook...but to the right, it seems like a telling snapshot of lefty climate hysteria. (via Instapundit)
Among the many stupid things in there: the idea that nuclear war would totally f*ck the planet is based on "shaky science." Presumably this is intended to contrast with the "settled science" that tells us that we are all going to die from climate change unless we retool all of human existence to avoid it.
For the record: I basically accept a somewhat de-hystericalized version of the standard view of this matter. I don't deserve much of an opinion about it. So I accept--in some cynical sense of 'accept'--the consensus of the relevant scientists, basically. I'm willing to accept policies aimed at decreasing carbon output... There's a good chance we're being played...but waddayagonnado?
There's a lot about climate-change hysteria that looks familiar from the perspective on the right: a bunch of long-term lefty goals--ending fossil fuels, renewable energy, decreasing consumption, ditching meat, more public transportation, more government control of the economy, more power to international institutions--and wow, what a coincidence! Some relevant science claims that we have to do all of them right now or we're all going to die! And the science is settled! And only irrational anti-science types on the right deny it.
Ok, so...if people on the left honestly believe that...why aren't they advocating the most obvious, proven, efficient course of action, i.e. expansion of nuclear power? Weird that this is all obvious and proven and the most super-duper emergency thing we've ever faced...but...still not as bad as nuclear...
Nuclear war, you see, is preferable to fossil fuels / climate change...but nuclear power...no way, climate bigot... (Though that comment is unfair against the average progressive...it's just another expression of frustration against the linked article...)
Also, if climate change really is the almost-unavoidable planet-killer it's being portrayed as, why aren't progressives who believe it giving basically all of their money to the relevant causes? If they really think that we're all on track to die, shouldn't they be doing things like giving every available penny to research on renewable energy and whatnot? Giving up meat? Having fewer kids? Living two families to a home? Living in tiny houses? Buying their own solar? They seem to be in complete panic when it comes to spending public money...but the panic doesn't extend far enough to interfere with their own money, nor their own "lifestyles."
Finally: if progressives want to avoid such problems, then they ought to work against the leftist colonization of science. The right is entirely justified in its skepticism of climate science because the progressive manipulation of science has become routine. When science intersects with progressive political causes, the former miraculously tends to come to track the latter. See, most recently and notably, the transgenderism train wreck--the politically-mandated change to the DSM, the recent proclamation that emphasizing sex (the biological category) is unscientific, while emphasizing "gender identity" (a pseudo-concept cooked up in women's/gender studies departments) is scientific. If you want science to have epistemic authority in political debates, then you shouldn't encourage it to be a lapdog of the left.
You just can't have both.
Again, that doesn't mean that I've become a dreaded "climate denier." (Heck, I believe in climate...) I'm on-board with taking steps. More nuclear (about which I used to be somewhat skeptical). Maybe some cap-and-trade action. A push for more objective research. More natural gas to buy some time, less coal. A push to throttle back on population growth a bit. But I'm skeptical about the hysteria. Like the stuff in that post I linked to.
Among the many stupid things in there: the idea that nuclear war would totally f*ck the planet is based on "shaky science." Presumably this is intended to contrast with the "settled science" that tells us that we are all going to die from climate change unless we retool all of human existence to avoid it.
For the record: I basically accept a somewhat de-hystericalized version of the standard view of this matter. I don't deserve much of an opinion about it. So I accept--in some cynical sense of 'accept'--the consensus of the relevant scientists, basically. I'm willing to accept policies aimed at decreasing carbon output... There's a good chance we're being played...but waddayagonnado?
There's a lot about climate-change hysteria that looks familiar from the perspective on the right: a bunch of long-term lefty goals--ending fossil fuels, renewable energy, decreasing consumption, ditching meat, more public transportation, more government control of the economy, more power to international institutions--and wow, what a coincidence! Some relevant science claims that we have to do all of them right now or we're all going to die! And the science is settled! And only irrational anti-science types on the right deny it.
Ok, so...if people on the left honestly believe that...why aren't they advocating the most obvious, proven, efficient course of action, i.e. expansion of nuclear power? Weird that this is all obvious and proven and the most super-duper emergency thing we've ever faced...but...still not as bad as nuclear...
Nuclear war, you see, is preferable to fossil fuels / climate change...but nuclear power...no way, climate bigot... (Though that comment is unfair against the average progressive...it's just another expression of frustration against the linked article...)
Also, if climate change really is the almost-unavoidable planet-killer it's being portrayed as, why aren't progressives who believe it giving basically all of their money to the relevant causes? If they really think that we're all on track to die, shouldn't they be doing things like giving every available penny to research on renewable energy and whatnot? Giving up meat? Having fewer kids? Living two families to a home? Living in tiny houses? Buying their own solar? They seem to be in complete panic when it comes to spending public money...but the panic doesn't extend far enough to interfere with their own money, nor their own "lifestyles."
Finally: if progressives want to avoid such problems, then they ought to work against the leftist colonization of science. The right is entirely justified in its skepticism of climate science because the progressive manipulation of science has become routine. When science intersects with progressive political causes, the former miraculously tends to come to track the latter. See, most recently and notably, the transgenderism train wreck--the politically-mandated change to the DSM, the recent proclamation that emphasizing sex (the biological category) is unscientific, while emphasizing "gender identity" (a pseudo-concept cooked up in women's/gender studies departments) is scientific. If you want science to have epistemic authority in political debates, then you shouldn't encourage it to be a lapdog of the left.
You just can't have both.
Again, that doesn't mean that I've become a dreaded "climate denier." (Heck, I believe in climate...) I'm on-board with taking steps. More nuclear (about which I used to be somewhat skeptical). Maybe some cap-and-trade action. A push for more objective research. More natural gas to buy some time, less coal. A push to throttle back on population growth a bit. But I'm skeptical about the hysteria. Like the stuff in that post I linked to.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:42 AM
1 Comments:
You are both talking out of your asses--the paper's author and you. The following are very well known, as you would know if you read the extremely well written wikipedia article on the subject.*
A. Half-life of soot in the atmosphere. (Known from volcanoes and forest fires.)
B. How much soot it takes to cause a winter. (Known from Krakatoa, etc.)
C. How much soot gets into the atmosphere from a firestorm.
In short: nuclear winter is *not* all that complex a climatologic phenomenon because it is 'short term' (order of a decade) and involves minimal feedback effects. Yes there is uncertainty as there is in any gedankenexperiment that you really don't want to test--we only have one planet, after all. But you are arguing entirely without looking at the evidence.
*I mean it is really, really good--basically a scientific review article.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home