Climate Change

Interests (Big Oil, Big Auto, etc.) love trying to poke holes in the scientific studies of global warming, puffing up their side, no matter how bad the science, and defaming others, no matter how well-founded their opinions are. As a friend points out regarding this interesting discussion:

Unfortunately, in the minds of the contrarians and their supporters, each criticism merely adds weight to their claim that their point of view is being SUPPRESSED. Those who chose to believe the Soons and Baliunases will not be dissuaded by arguments made made by the likes of Mann and Schmidt.

I always thought it was big mistake for the folks concerned about global warming to push a regulatory approach (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol) as a solution. Unlike criteria pollutants, whose emissions are somewhat amenable to control, greenhouse emissions are difficult to control except by scaling back combustion. In addition, the greenhouse problem is cumulative in nature: scaling back emissions just delays the problem, it doesn't solve it.

Free debate is the best way for contrarians and climate scientists to come to a common understanding. The trouble, of course, is that when government action is under consideration, free debate becomes scarce. Interests speak then. Interests insist on no action. And that is what will happen. Except for opening ANWR, of course.

A technological revolution is required. Environmental folks should be speaking the language of revolution: real revolution, not regulation. Hybrid cars, not Kyoto Protocol. The oil interests realize that worldwide oil production is at or near its peak, and they may need to change their approach in time, perhaps largely abandoning oil. Big Oil is ready, or will be ready before too long, to be peeled away from Big Auto, because they aren't dummies, and they need to move on. Big Auto will resist for a longer time. Environmentalists need to change their approach, because regulation won't work for this problem.