Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gus Van Horn blog

Reblogged:Numbskull Is Too Kind a Word

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Discussing the recent wailing and gnashing of teeth about the ice melting in Greenland, George Reisman comments in part as follows:

smokestacks.jpg
"Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent 'Thank you' to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find." -- Ayn Rand (Image by Devin McGloin, via Unsplash, license.)
To put these numbers in proper perspective, recall that a quarter of an inch is 250 one-thousandths of an inch. So what the fake media were trying to frighten us with is a rise in the sea level of little more than a tenth of a quarter of an inch (i.e., .027/.250).

...

So, get ready for 250 billion tons of melting ice (wow, that's large) to explain the Atlantic Ocean wiping out New York City and New Jersey. It never occurs to these numbskulls to check just how much water is actually involved and what difference it actually makes.
These are the same people who have predicted "doom in a decade" for decades, who gratuitously mention "climate change" any time something is attributable even to normal weather, and are oddly focused on depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need:
To the extent that mankind has an influence on climate change, the United States is a minor player. The United States has been reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, but these reductions are overwhelmed by the increases coming from China, India and some others.
And much of the emission reductions come thanks to natural gas obtained from fracking -- which, of course, the greens oppose, along with (zero-emission) nuclear power.

Even if I were worried about the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate (I am not.) and we had viable alternatives to fossil fuels (Aside from nuclear energy, we do not.) and these alternatives could replace fossil fuels tomorrow (They can't.) -- I would question everything these people say and wonder about their actual motives.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

and are oddly focused on depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need:

To the extent that mankind has an influence on climate change, the United States is a minor player. The United States has been reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, but these reductions are overwhelmed by the increases coming from China, India and some others.

So, the focus should instead be on blaming India even though literally every western country (and non-western country) emits more CO2 (per capita) than India? Of course, most of the increases are coming from India, but India is basically starting from zero. Most of the reductions are coming from Western countries, but they're starting from very high numbers (way higher than India). The only way India's emissions wouldn't increase is if it was left at zero (comparing increases in India to reductions in Western countries and assigning blame accordingly is non-sense, because we're starting from different base levels). Even after the "reductions", emissions by Western countries are orders of magnitudes higher than India (but apparently, "depriving only Western economies of the fuel they need" is the real injustice). India's emissions should be way higher, if "equality of blame" is the goal.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...