Discussion of Robin Garr's Coals review

oh, btw, july=hottest month on record. ever. lets keep burnin stuff!

[Robin Garr]

oh, btw, july=hottest month on record. ever. lets keep burnin stuff!

For the record, I do believe that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, so this is not coming from the Right.

But in all fairness, it should be pointed out that the two hottest prior months of July were 1901 and 1934.

that being said, the four hottest decades on record are the 70's, 80's, 90's and oo's?lol. each decade getting hotter. i'm seeing a pattern here. i was really just joking about the coal pizza ovens, i will totally eat there, but i find it interesting the response any negative comment about coal gets in this state.

not trying to offend, just stating opinions.

[Robin Garr]

that being said, the four hottest decades on record are the 70's, 80's, 90's and oo's?lol. each decade getting hotter. i'm seeing a pattern here. i was really just joking about the coal pizza ovens, i will totally eat there, but i find it interesting the response any negative comment about coal gets in this state.

not trying to offend, just stating opinions.

Understood, Mark, and none taken. And believe me, as a long-time Louisville leftie, I'd say if you want to talk about Kentuckians supporting coal, you probably ought to specify "Kentuckians outside Jefferson County."

I think Harry Caudill's "Night Comes To The Cumberlands" told the tale on coal and Kentucky a generation or two ago. It's still a classic, and Harry was no fan of Big Coal.

oh, btw, july=hottest month on record. ever. lets keep burnin stuff!

For the record, I do believe that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, so this is not coming from the Right.

But in all fairness, it should be pointed out that the two hottest prior months of July were 1901 and 1934.

All well and good - but belief is a matter of faith best left to those who look for answers from non-rational sources. It's likely the climate is changing as we live in a dynamic biosphere - but the cause of that change is likely multifactorial and the human impact remains to be elucidated. There's more politics than good science in the public policy debate.

There's more politics than good science in the public policy debate.

Probably the best statement regarding global warming I've seen

[Robin Garr]

... the cause of that change is likely multifactorial and the human impact remains to be elucidated. There's more politics than good science in the public policy debate.

Well ... that's all very smart, but here's the problem, Mark: If by chance the human factor is of serious concern, but we screw around waiting for rigorous data, it might be too late to reverse the problem by the time we get that proof. On the other hand, if we start taking just-in-case measures now, no harm is done, but possibly great good.

What's the argument for delay?

Won't anyone think of the pizza?!?!

^this

What's the argument for delay?

The cost to implement the changes and it's and its effect on an already fragile economy. Just look at what the push for ethanol fuels has done to the price of grains and the associated costs for food!

[Robin Garr]

What's the argument for delay?

The cost to implement the changes and it's and its effect on an already fragile economy. Just look at what the push for ethanol fuels has done to the price of grains and the associated costs for food!

Well, yeah, but the push for ethanol came from the other side. It's not really an environmentalist issue, more welfare for the big farm lobby.

... the cause of that change is likely multifactorial and the human impact remains to be elucidated. There's more politics than good science in the public policy debate.

Well ... that's all very smart, but here's the problem, Mark: If by chance the human factor is of serious concern, but we screw around waiting for rigorous data, it might be too late to reverse the problem by the time we get that proof. On the other hand, if we start taking just-in-case measures now, no harm is done, but possibly great good.

What's the argument for delay?

In my experience a rational and measured approach to any problem fraught with unknowns generally results in a better outcome. The socioeconomic impact of irrational policy could certainly be harmful.

... the cause of that change is likely multifactorial and the human impact remains to be elucidated. There's more politics than good science in the public policy debate.

Well ... that's all very smart, but here's the problem, Mark: If by chance the human factor is of serious concern, but we screw around waiting for rigorous data, it might be too late to reverse the problem by the time we get that proof. On the other hand, if we start taking just-in-case measures now, no harm is done, but possibly great good.

What's the argument for delay?

How about the cure is worse than the disease?

I submit that our knowledge of climate dynamics is akin to the knowledge of 17th century physicians, and the cure is worse than bleeding via leeches.

that being said, the four hottest decades on record are the 70's, 80's, 90's and oo's?lol. each decade getting hotter. i'm seeing a pattern here. i was really just joking about the coal pizza ovens, i will totally eat there, but i find it interesting the response any negative comment about coal gets in this state.

not trying to offend, just stating opinions.

This is not true. I'm I the only one who remembers the "global freezing" predictions from the 70's and early 80's?

[Robin Garr]

This is not true. I'm I the only one who remembers the "global freezing" predictions from the 70's and early 80's?

Was that ever mainstream? I think you'll find that "global warming" as a serious hypothesis goes back at least to the early postwar era. It was certainly a topic of discussion during the International Geophysical Year in 1958 and the first Earth Day in ... 1960?

Part of the problem is that "warming" invites ill-informed jokes when people confuse overall trends with local phenomena. "Chaotic global climate change" probably more accurately reflects what we're seeing over the past few decades.

Sure, maybe we don't know enough to prove it, but that sounds to me an awful lot like fundies chanting "EE-volution is only a theory." With one serious study recently suggesting that the tipping point for atmospheric CO2 could come as soon as 2020, the time for delay and continued debate is past.