Climate Policy

[kandrathe]

circumstantial evidence is reason to be skeptical.

However, when that circumstantial evidence is backed up by a strong scientific explanation which doesn't have to be "bent" in any way to explain that the circumstantial evidence makes sense, the circumstantial evidence moves to extremely compelling.

When the alternative explanation is maybe something in nature changed, so now the scientific theory, which fits pretty much perfectly, is not valid and what we really have is some cosmically improbable coincidence of events to make it look scientifically valid, well then the scientific explanation becomes virtually iron clad. Look at the supporting evidence. For a government to discard all that and bank on all of that being some massive coincidence is irresponsible to the people they are governing.

There is a time to be skeptical, but when the option is strong circumstantial evidence vs. some low probability random chance, my skepticism lies with the low probability random chance. I think you'll find a very small group of informed supporters are on that side of the fence with a larger group of under-informed supporters.

How well does the seemingly linear temperature rise match the long wave solar minimums and maximums? Granted, there are scientists who have presented that the Sun has no effect on warming, and those that believe it does. I happen to side with the ones who believe the sun does in fact warm the Earth, and variations of solar activity have demonstrated a measurable impact on weather, and climate. A question to ask yourself. Where does the heat come from if not from the sun? Might it be possible that solar maximums also have an impact on cloud formation? If so, could that play a role in contributing to raising temperature via greenhouse effect? I think it might. But, these are very complex phenomena. When you read these scientists papers though, I feel there is great fear in challenging the "political consensus on climate change". I'm not used to science being described as "iron clad". Back in the day, scientists thought Newton had pretty much figured out that gravity thing. What government should do is figure out how to serve the people, rather than endorsing scientific viewpoints. So, what does that mean? I think it means we hedge our bets. We acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that human activity may irreparably damage the climate (and in fact it might be too late). We should therefore devise a direct action plan to convert our fossil fuel burning mechanisms toward renewable sources as quickly as is economically feasible. I think the government should start with the largest or oldest generating plants first, and work with their owners to fully rebuild them as renewable generation with the first conversions occurring in five years and the rest as quickly as is economically feasible after that.

Carbon credits is not a direct action plan, and will only result in carbon offset fraud. Meaning, people will pay more for energy because huge producers will need to buy credits, and due to the dearth of green projects, billions will be spent on projects that fail to sequester the carbon they claim. So, let's just do it the direct route, and skip the trading of fictitious nonsense.

I believe some people are jumping to conclusions about things that are difficult to model, and even more difficult to prove. I am an advocate for moving away from fossil fuels, but just not an advocate for running around all crazy because there is 100ppm more CO2 in the air over the past few hundred years. So, I say, "Let's get together and form a win-win plan for everyone."