Just finished Super Freakonomics. Great stuff, and well worth the read. I won’t spoil it for you, get your own copy 
They have a very interesting second to last section on anthropological climate change, and some interesting ideas on ways to combat it (as opposed to the “let’s just revert to medieval times” ala Kyoto). So I had a look around for more information on the topic. Which brought me to read a post on climateprogress.org, an “authority” blog written by Joe Romm which is essentially pro Kyoto.
Disagreeing is a good thing. We shouldn’t take things at face value, and most certainly shouldn’t simply believe things simply because they are in the press or published on the Internet.
My issue is, if Joe is right, and has the science to back himself up, why does he need to resort to schoolground name calling. I started reading his posts hoping to get an alternative view, but all I saw was what looked like to demented rantings of a spoilt child. Super Freakonomics says some bad things about (for instance) Al Gore, but at no point do they stoop to calling him an idiot, or making up derisory nicknames for him. Bjorn Lomborg didn’t do that in “Cool It” either. They didn’t need to – why does Joe I wonder.
Yet again, a pro Kyoto voice that simply is not willing to listen to any alternative. THAT’s why for some people (I’m one of them) the anti carbon movement is more a religion than a science. A shame, because I’m willing to listen to rational arguments. I’m not listening to someone who tells me this is how it is “you just need to trust me”. Asking me to trust you is telling me you have a secret, ulterior agenda.
Trust is for religion. Proof is for science.
Tags: economics, global warming
