If Donald Snowflake rejects the Paris Accord on Climate, then I'm for the Paris agreement. This is the guy who insisted Obama was born in Kenya, or at least that his birth certificate was fraudulent, who insisted he won the popular vote, who insisted the crowd attending his coronation was bigger than any other President's Inaugural crowd. So, ipso facto, if Donald Snowflake says it, it must be wrong.
On the other hand, I have so often found that when I was most sure about something it often meant I did not know enough about it to doubt, and this may be true of the Paris accord.
Having heard some more dispassionate discussions on the subject, I'm not at all sure Paris makes much difference. The nations who signed on are voicing their concern, but they are in no way really committed, and may well be deterred from whatever efforts they currently anticipate by internal forces both commercial and engineering.
Reading the analysis in Reason.org, I wonder whether lefties like me are not capable of as much irrationality, at times, as those inane nabobs of the Right.
The strategies and tactics of the Paris accord may simply not be the best choices to achieve the goals toward whcih some climate scientist think we should strive. Lowering CO2 in the atmosphere may be a good thing, but rising levels might also be a good thing, up to a point. And achieving this goal might be done by changing behavior and technology in the high tech developed world, but trying to get a billion Indians in the subcontinent to stop burning wood in stoves may be wishful thinking.
As Julian Morris pointed out in his analysis in Reason, org., an obvious tactic which might help the planet would be for participating nations to agree to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but, as Morris noted, slyly, there was no appetite for doing this. What he was implying, of course, was signatory nations were eager to appear righteous, but not as willing to actually incur conflict or cost in pursuing climate friendly actions.
He also pointed out that as CO2 rises, forests tend to flourish, as they breathe the stuff in and crops growing more vigorously.
I am as guilty as anyone of freaking out at the suggestion forests might actually be contributing to climate change in an adverse way.
Some years ago, I wrote a snarky blog about Nadine Unger, the Yale forestry professor who had the temerity to suggest forests may not be the best thing that ever happened to our planet, in climate terms. I went so far as to characterize her as a blond bimbo, but was chastened by Ms. Maud's stern reminder I was being an insensitive male chauvinist pig and to stick to the science.
"Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change, Professor Nadine Unger of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) reports that large-scale forest losses during the last 150 years have reduced global emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), which control the atmospheric distribution of many short-lived climate pollutants, such as tropospheric ozone, methane, and aerosol particles.
Using sophisticated climate modeling, Unger calculated that a 30-percent decline in BVOC emissions between 1850 and 2000, largely through the conversion of forests to cropland, produced a net global cooling of about 0.1 degrees Celsius. During the same period, the global climate warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius, mostly due to increases in fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions."--Eurekalert
I wasn't the only one. That blog posting set the record for responses, most of which were from outraged liberals who did not like the implications of Professor Unger's science.
So all this is to say, when we travel the road of political diatribe, we run the risk of violating science and, ultimately, intellectual honesty.
The fact is Donald Snowflake may be right for the wrong reasons occasionally.
Paris may be one of those occasions, much as I hate to admit it.
On the other hand, I have so often found that when I was most sure about something it often meant I did not know enough about it to doubt, and this may be true of the Paris accord.
Having heard some more dispassionate discussions on the subject, I'm not at all sure Paris makes much difference. The nations who signed on are voicing their concern, but they are in no way really committed, and may well be deterred from whatever efforts they currently anticipate by internal forces both commercial and engineering.
 |
| He thinks global warming is for real |
Reading the analysis in Reason.org, I wonder whether lefties like me are not capable of as much irrationality, at times, as those inane nabobs of the Right.
The strategies and tactics of the Paris accord may simply not be the best choices to achieve the goals toward whcih some climate scientist think we should strive. Lowering CO2 in the atmosphere may be a good thing, but rising levels might also be a good thing, up to a point. And achieving this goal might be done by changing behavior and technology in the high tech developed world, but trying to get a billion Indians in the subcontinent to stop burning wood in stoves may be wishful thinking.
As Julian Morris pointed out in his analysis in Reason, org., an obvious tactic which might help the planet would be for participating nations to agree to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but, as Morris noted, slyly, there was no appetite for doing this. What he was implying, of course, was signatory nations were eager to appear righteous, but not as willing to actually incur conflict or cost in pursuing climate friendly actions.
He also pointed out that as CO2 rises, forests tend to flourish, as they breathe the stuff in and crops growing more vigorously.
I am as guilty as anyone of freaking out at the suggestion forests might actually be contributing to climate change in an adverse way.
Some years ago, I wrote a snarky blog about Nadine Unger, the Yale forestry professor who had the temerity to suggest forests may not be the best thing that ever happened to our planet, in climate terms. I went so far as to characterize her as a blond bimbo, but was chastened by Ms. Maud's stern reminder I was being an insensitive male chauvinist pig and to stick to the science.
 |
| Prof. Unger, outdoor mode |
"Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change, Professor Nadine Unger of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) reports that large-scale forest losses during the last 150 years have reduced global emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), which control the atmospheric distribution of many short-lived climate pollutants, such as tropospheric ozone, methane, and aerosol particles.
Using sophisticated climate modeling, Unger calculated that a 30-percent decline in BVOC emissions between 1850 and 2000, largely through the conversion of forests to cropland, produced a net global cooling of about 0.1 degrees Celsius. During the same period, the global climate warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius, mostly due to increases in fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions."--Eurekalert
I wasn't the only one. That blog posting set the record for responses, most of which were from outraged liberals who did not like the implications of Professor Unger's science.
 |
| Prof. Unger, Academic mode |
So all this is to say, when we travel the road of political diatribe, we run the risk of violating science and, ultimately, intellectual honesty.
The fact is Donald Snowflake may be right for the wrong reasons occasionally.
Paris may be one of those occasions, much as I hate to admit it.
You are being far too kind by referring to this clown as "Donald Snowflake". He has proven much more effective than you at developing nicknames that stick (Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Lying Ted, etc). Learning from him, I suggest you go with "D.....bag Donald" or, if this is a family friendly blog, at least Dirtbag Donald. Then, at least, his base will know what you are talking about!
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. What Donald is the grand master of is marketing and no Democrat, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, approaches him in this department. I am working on a better name. "Snowflake" is not it. D...bag doesn't quite get there, either. Donald Demented implies the voters are too. (Which may be true, but not good marketing.) Donnie Dubious gets to the point but that stretches the vocabulary range of too many citizens. Dorky Donnie? Donnie Dimwit, Donnie Duplicitous?
Trump chumps, I like. That says it all.
But what to call the Bloviator?
Phantom