Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

"The connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise has not
been demonstrated" - I thought the discussion was based on the "hockey
stick" evidence. Are you disputing it?

Profit based production leads to the current phenomenon of engineered
obsolescence. We need to design products that last a lifetime and are fuel
efficient, all of which goes against the current profit based system of
consumption. If people are urged to realize that every dollar they spend is
equivalent to a certain amount of carbon emissions, perhaps that would be a
good start.


On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Marx <> wrote:

On 20 Feb 2012 at 10:45, Shahram Mostarshed wrote:

Climate is too complex to analyze at a fundamental level. We don't have
another planet to
conduct a controlled experiment where we can tweak the variables one at
a time to see the
outcome. The best we can hope for is a statistical analysis of climate
The real question we ought to be asking is given the fact that there is
a direct and indisputable
connection between carbon emissions and temperature rise, should we
continue with the current
rate of consumption and production (based on profits)?

Two issues with your message:
(1) The connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise has
not been demonstrated.
It is assumed based on knowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
and that the quanity in the
atmosphere has increased and is increasing due to fossil fuel consumption.

(2) You make the assumption that consumption and production are based on
profits. The lifestyle and
quality of life enjoyed by modern society is the direct result of access
to energy resources that have
enabled the production of goods and services that employ people and drive
economies. There is a
correlation between per capita energy usage and GDP and also the UN's
human development index
(HDI). Yes, we could reduce consumption by choice or by government
mandate, but that would
severely damage the economy. An alternative is to maintain or improve
quality of life and economic
capacity by increasing efficiencies and by using a mixture of all
available energy resources going
forward with the concept that we are moving in the direction of clearner,
more environmentally firendly
techologies (if there are any). Some have the simplistic view that
increasing prices on fossil fuels will
cause everyone to move toward renewables. This cannot work because (1) we
get 83 % of our energy
of fossil fuels, (2) the US is currently using around 95 quadrillion BTU
per year, and (3) raising energy
costs damages the economy that is required to provide resources for the
development of the
alternatives. If someone loses their job, they cannot afford to install a
solar array on their home
(especially since it is likely to be reposessed).
Forum for Physics Educators