That’s direct quote from Scott Adams in this video he posted yesterday. Well worth your time.
In this video, ‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams solves the climate debate and saves the world (really).
Watch:
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB
h/t to Joe Born
There’s also this classic Hockey Stick cartoon from Josh, also well worth your time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WUWT readers “beng135”and “the other Phil” make some important points:
— — — — — — — —
beng135: February 21, 2019 at 6:43 am
Scott Adams is OK & at least isn’t a liberal sycophant, but many of us here have been studying the AGW issue for far longer than him & have the proper backgrounds to do so, so I’m not really interested in his “project”. Adams says the real issue isn’t scientific? WTF?
the other Phil: February 21, 2019 at 8:21 am
Scott isn’t arguing more and better science is unnecessary. He is making the point that there are two groups talking past each other, and the problem isn’t a lack of good science, it’s a lack of appropriate communications tools.
You aren’t the target for his project. The targets include mainstream Americans who have neither the desire nor the time to delve into the subject in great depth, and rely on mainstream media to help form their opinions, as well as legislators and other policymakers who need a better understanding of the issues.
— — — — — — — —
Almost everyone who takes time to comment on this blog has some level of basic familiarity with the issues AGW skeptics have with today’s mainstream climate science.
But, as has been said by others, skeptics hold a variety of opinions as to what constitutes a scientifically valid set of counter-arguments in building a science-based case against today’s mainstream theory.
When the validity of today’s mainstream climate science is being questioned in an open forum, the very first arguments offered by the climate scientists and by the non-scientist climate activists alike are that, (1) recent warming is unprecedented as demonstrated by paleoclimate temperature studies, a.k.a. the Hockey Stick; (2) the General Circulation Models include an accurate enough representation of atmospheric and ocean dynamics to believe that the postulated water vapor feedback mechanism actually does exist and that it actually does amplify CO2’s basic warming effect; and (3) many warning signs of the dangerous impacts of climate change are already evident.
Scott Adams has noted that for every persuasive scientific argument either side can muster in support of its respective position, the opposition can also present an equally persuasive counter-argument. Furthermore, for the layman who is not familiar with the basic theory of today’s climate science, the science content of each argument and counter-argument quickly becomes impenetrable.
My own opinion is that how deep into the science each opposing side can go before the audience’s eyes glaze over depends in part on how much incentive that audience has to believe one side or the other, on how much knowledge they already have of the science arguments, and on how concisely and effectively the arguments are being presented.
As things stand today, the average Joe and Jane Voter have no incentive to question the validity of mainstream climate science, simply for the fact that no one is demanding personal and economic sacrifice of them in the name of fighting climate change.
And so the climate activists who are pushing the Green New Deal have not yet been forced to come to grips with the basic conundrum of their own position regarding the true dangers of climates change.
As the activists are now promoting it, the Green New Deal can quickly and sharply reduce our GHG emissions while imposing little or no hardship on the American people. But if the activists are wrong, if their GND plan is completely unrealistic in how far and fast it can go, then sacrifice and hardship must be demanded.
If the dangers of climate change are real and are severe, and if quick action is needed to reduce America’s GHG emissions, how could it not be otherwise, how could hardship and sacrifice not be demanded?
What moral imperatives are involved here? If the Green New Deal won’t work, are the dangers of climate change so serious and so close on the horizon that GHG reductions must be quickly and forcefully imposed, not simply encouraged?
Predicting that the Green New Deal won’t prove effective in actual practice, and assuming America’s voters won’t voluntarily commit to the necessary hardships and sacrifices if the GND doesn’t work, then sharp GHG reductions must be imposed through the aggressive enforcement of anti-carbon regulations.
If this indeed is the case, then is there not a strong moral imperative for climate activists to act in accordance with their convictions, even if this means using the broad powers of the federal government in coercing the needed GHG reductions?
“Predicting that the Green New Deal won’t prove effective in actual practice, and assuming America’s voters won’t voluntarily commit to the necessary hardships and sacrifices if the GND doesn’t work, then sharp GHG reductions must be imposed through the aggressive enforcement of anti-carbon regulations.”
Wife, where did you put my yellow vest?
If it hasn’t been done it already, the makers of these yellow vests ought to be including a label clearly stating that the manufacturer is in no way liable for the personal actions of the people who wear their vests, or for any consequences which may flow from said personal actions.
That said, I do carry a safety vest and a white hardhat in my company vehicle, but the vest is orange, not yellow. Not that the color would make any difference to the authorities if they decided I wasn’t on their side.
“…Not that the color would make any difference to the authorities if they decided I wasn’t on their side.” Beta, where do you live that it would make any difference if the authorities weren’t on your side?
Dave, some further explanation of my use of the phrase ‘the authorities’ is in order.
I work in nuclear construction and operations. My internet handle ‘Beta Blocker’ is chosen because my career occupational dose has come mainly from beta/gamma sources of radiation.
Here in America, nuclear is under strong competitive pressure from natural gas. The problem is compounded because America’s nuclear industry has shown itself incapable of keeping nuclear’s construction costs under control.
For one very prominent example, in 2012, Southern Nuclear claimed that Vogtle 3 & 4 — two new AP1000 reactor units located on the same site as Vogtle 1 & 2 — could be constructed in full compliance with the NRC’s quality assurance standards for roughly 12 billion dollars.
That project is now years behind schedule and the price has now doubled to roughly 27 billion dollars. Nearly all of the additional cost was a direct consequence of Southern Nuclear’s near complete mismanagement of the Vogtle 3 & 4 project. The project’s managers made every classic mistake it is possible to make in managing a large, highly complex nuclear construction effort.
The people who pay my salary are counting on fears of climate change to keep nuclear in America’s energy mix. They do not yet recognize that unless they take strong action to control nuclear’s costs, what happens with the debate over climate change won’t really matter, they will not succeed in keeping nuclear power alive in America.
When it comes to assigning responsibility for the nuclear industry’s failure to emphasize cost control, it does not pay to be a renegade inside of the industry right now. To that extent, the color of the safety vest I wear doesn’t matter to the people now in charge of nuclear’s future — ‘the authorities’ for lack of a better phrase.
Ja. Ja. Like I said
North. South. East. West.
Gas is best.
The extra CO2 is a bonus for those wanting a greener world.
It is our dung in the air….
I always hold Scott at an arms length. One issue is why would we not be advocating for Gen IV Reactors anyway? Why hinge on your belief of catastrophic climate change to support the new generation of Nuclear generators? I’m hugely (bigly) skeptical of the catastrophic claims of global warming, new methods of power generation should still be promoted over unreliable methods such as wind and solar.