Skip to main content

Climate Change

Yesterday, I tried to view Dr. John Holdren releasing the latest report on climate change but could not download it after several attempts because of some intermittent power troubles ... even could not watch it from the White House page on YouTube as it was not playing in a continuous manner ... don't know if there was some issue with my net connection or with the speed of YouTube as I am usually able to watch streaming videos without much trouble ...

With respect to my broad opinions/inclinations about climate change, I can say that I've watched with fascination both of Al Gore's famous Senate depositions — the older one before the Senate EPW Committee and the newer one before the Senate FRC. Of course, I've watched An Inconvenient Truth.

Recently, I learned that Freeman Dyson is a 'skeptic' about the effects of human actions on climate change. I very much believe that the issues related to climate change need to be examined with proper scientific skepticism but when Dyson says that 'warm regions of the world are not getting warmer', I think I can dispute him on that score and people living in many warm countries of the world would also disagree with Dyson.

I think the debate about whether human actions have had detrimental effects on the environment is closed. The conclusion being that human action certainly has had negative consequences. To imagine otherwise would be extraordinarily childish and perhaps a case of extraordinary optimism or wishful thinking of the highest order.

We have substantially consumed fossil fuels such as hydrocarbons in the last one century — nature took millions of years to produce those hydrocarbons.

We have not run out of coal but the amounts of greenhouse gases that thermal power plants are emitting is leading to a fundamental change in the basic composition of the atmosphere . . . the amount of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising to unheard of levels which will definitely have consequences ...

Nobody disputes that the climate of the planet is dynamic ... the geological history of the planet is there for all to see. Nobody should have any issue with acknowledging the fact that there are long term cycles of climate change due to the precession of the equinox and other causes.

It is also a fact that the most recent ice on the planet peaked about 20,000 years ago. We are currently living in a moment in our planet's history when it's going through a relatively warmer period of its life.

All this having been said, it is transparently clear that human action is causing harm to the earth's environment and it would be in our own interest to try and understand as much as possible what harm we are causing. As we understand this cause and effect relationship, we may be better able to protect the people around the world from major natural disasters or climate disasters.

Comments

  1. "All this having been said, it is transparently clear that human action is causing harm to the earth's environment ..."

    This is a hypothesis and not an axiom. I would like to point out that I am a scientist, and not a "denier" - rather a skeptic. That is the scientific method: be skeptical of every "truth" until it is clear that the hypothesis fits all the facts. Even then, something as complex as climate can only ever be modeled roughly.

    I agree absoutley that "it would be in our own interest to try and understand as much as possible what [if any] harm we are causing."

    Note that irrespective of the importance or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change, there is no question that fossil fuels are limited in supply (almost everything is) and that finding alternatives must be a major priority for the industrialised world in particular.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts ...

Popular posts from this blog

Longforms and 'Best of 2017' Lists and Favorite Books by Ashutosh Joglekar and Scott Aaronson

Ashutosh Joglekar's books list. http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2018/03/30-favorite-books.html Scott Aaronson' list https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3679 https://www.wired.com/story/most-read-wired-magazine-stories-2017/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-best-books-we-read-in-2017/548912/ https://longreads.com/2017/12/21/longreads-best-of-2017-essays/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/21/world/asia/how-the-rohingya-escaped.html https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/artificial-intelligence-future-scenarios-180968403/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/01/20/citizen-kay https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-we-are-hunt-cancer-vaccine-180968391/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/dna-based-attack-against-cancer-may-work-180968407/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/22/dona...

Why Do We Have A Name?

Humans across religious, cultural and national differences all have names. At least all modern humans have this. I wonder if the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle or the tribes who live in the Nicobar Islands cut off from civilization since the last many thousands of years have a similar naming convention as the rest of us humans do. And we humans often choose to have system of naming that consists of a first name and a last name. the last name often indicates a person’s or a family’s occupation and remains the same from generation to generation. All the offspring of one family get the same last name as the parents — usually the last name of the father. In some cultures, the first names can be the same as that of the father too. In some cultures, the name of the village, and other names too get added to the child’s name and it grows rather long. But consider for a moment how it all would have started and taken hold among humans in deep antiquity. Humans would have acquired...

Ayn Rand Was Right

Do we exalt the John Galts and Howard Roarks among us or despise them? Do we admire the ultimate, self-centered and selfish capitalists or the selfless, self-sacrificing altruists? Oh sure there are the Martin Luther King, Jr.s and Mahatma Gandhis and Nelson Mandelas and Aung Sun Suu Kyis we like to point to as icons and worthy role models for our children. But look deeply and we find that we are obsessed with the wealthy. And who are the wealthy? Why do we let the Robert Rubins, Sandy Weills, Jakc Welchs, Jamie Dimons and their Wall St. brethren keep their millions? Because we consider that right and their right. Let alone the hedge fund people whose entire purpose is to become billionaires. How many people explicitly make life choices that will lead to a life of service -> not be a charlatan like Mother Teresa but just helping the underprivileged without trying to 'achieve' greatness by so doing. So Lance Armstrong and Greg Mortensen and the Evangelical Christ...