Wow, I was going to congratulate you on sticking your neck out with such a bold 'pro-whaling' comment as your last one (26/6), but it seems to be the mainstream opinion among the cosmopolitan community of Economist-commenters. :D
(29/7) I am slipping further into unorthodoxy, Marco... the more I read, the more I am thinking that AGW is a relatively unimportant component of the last century's global temperature trend. My equation of global warming skeptics with William Jennings Bryan was unfair, and my 'spherical horse' model is oversimplified. I shall wait until I am more certain before posting a complete mea culpa.
Just be careful you're not just placing yourself back on the one-dimensional line, skeptic's end! I, for one, would be disappointed. I would agree that our "cooler in 2020 than 2007" bet has an even chance. The further away the date, the more unstoppably certain your prediction would have to be to be useful as a guide to action.
Do not fear, these one-dimensional lines extend a *very* long way. In practical terms the difference between 'this trend is due to anthropogenic emissions' and 'this trend is 30% due to anthropogenic emissions' is not going to be important, as you can't oppose the current consensus from such an indefensible 'crackpot' position. Need to wait for more bad consequences of people trying to 'do something' about AGW, continued divergence of global trends from the modelled predictions, and failure of catastrophic consequences to materialise. This will be a non-issue by 2020, as sure as eggs are eggs. I am also feeling confident we have a 50/50 chance with that bet.
7 comments:
That's okay. We understand. If you ever want to talk about philosophy, doughnuts, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, we'll be here for you.
Wow, I was going to congratulate you on sticking your neck out with such a bold 'pro-whaling' comment as your last one (26/6), but it seems to be the mainstream opinion among the cosmopolitan community of Economist-commenters. :D
Four weeks today! What have you been thinking about all this tim?
FunOrb mainly.
(29/7) I am slipping further into unorthodoxy, Marco... the more I read, the more I am thinking that AGW is a relatively unimportant component of the last century's global temperature trend. My equation of global warming skeptics with William Jennings Bryan was unfair, and my 'spherical horse' model is oversimplified. I shall wait until I am more certain before posting a complete mea culpa.
Just be careful you're not just placing yourself back on the one-dimensional line, skeptic's end! I, for one, would be disappointed. I would agree that our "cooler in 2020 than 2007" bet has an even chance. The further away the date, the more unstoppably certain your prediction would have to be to be useful as a guide to action.
Do not fear, these one-dimensional lines extend a *very* long way. In practical terms the difference between 'this trend is due to anthropogenic emissions' and 'this trend is 30% due to anthropogenic emissions' is not going to be important, as you can't oppose the current consensus from such an indefensible 'crackpot' position. Need to wait for more bad consequences of people trying to 'do something' about AGW, continued divergence of global trends from the modelled predictions, and failure of catastrophic consequences to materialise. This will be a non-issue by 2020, as sure as eggs are eggs.
I am also feeling confident we have a 50/50 chance with that bet.
Post a Comment