Posts
In
contrast to the asinine comments that I have been reading on Facebook
in the past couple of days, this stood out as a clear statement, both
of difference but of common cause.
Paul
Beckwith and Guy McPherson
As
part of a Facebook exchange today someone who will remain nameless,
but purporting to occupy a “middle position” by attacking both
Nicole Foss and myself, wrote this inflammatory and insulting
comment:
"The
scientists are not the problem, Guy is. If you refer to AMEG, then
they are edging toward the fringe, but generally are not yet there.
Unfortunately, Paul Beckwith is coming more and more under Guy's
influence".
Paul
responded. I liked his comment so I am reproducing it:
"Guy
has no influence on me whatsoever. In fact I seldom have the time to
read through his stuff, I like to operate independently, as a loose
scientific cannon, if you will. If it appears that my position and
views are coming closer to his then that is solely due to my
scientific analysis of the overall climate system.
"Humanity
is basically very stupid. Collectively of course. Anybody reading
this is an exception to this observation, needless to say. However, a
huge balancing feedback negating total extinction is us. Humans. And
I am not talking only about innovation and ingenuity with our backs
to the wall, as writers often claim. Consider half the population
kicking the bucket. That reduces the human impact on the planet, and
the carbon dioxide emitted from respiration. It is inconceivable to
me that the entire population can just vanish, unless a bolide takes
out the planet and creates a second moon in the process, in a similar
fashion to the creation of our first moon".
He
went on to say:
"Do
not take this the wrong way. Guy is a great guy, and a very
intelligent man doing important work and communication. I am simply
emphasizing that I prefer to focus my readings and work on a wide
scope of scientific papers, from the nitty gritty details to the
big-picture view of the climate system interactions. And I do not
like what I see".
And
then this:
I
think that our different and similar views will become very clear
when he invites me on his show and we hash things out. I have way
more respect for Guy than I do for the so-called mainstream
introverted media shy methane denial scientists.
This
contrast so markedly in its mature approach and reasonableness that I
have decided to post the comments.
There's something to be learned by some people from the following:
There's something to be learned by some people from the following:
I am glad to hear Paul Beckwith's comments. Perhaps he will come even closer to Guy's position if he thinks of this. If half the population of the planet dies that will cause such chaos that most of the human carbon released into the atmosphere will cease. But the way AMEG has proposed to cool things in the Arctic is to produce some dimming. If the world economy collapses for whatever reason, the dimming from the coal burning plants in China and elsewhere will cease and in short order the warming will dramatically increase, long before any reduction in carbon has any effect.
ReplyDeleteSecondly a collapse of the world economy will bring down the world's electric grids and with that the ability to cool nuclear power plants and their spent fuel pools. We end up with 400 + Chernobyls.
Fairewinds has recently interviewed the author of 400 Chernobyls, Matthew Stein. They discuss the grid collapsing from EMP or Solar Flares, but any cause of grid collapse will bring the nuke plants down. Decommissioning nuclear plants should perhaps be the cause of the day, ahead of anything else.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400-chernobyls-solar-flares-electromagnetic-pulses-and-nuclear-armageddon
http://www.fairewinds.org/solarstorms-mat-stein/
http://www.fairewinds.org/emps-beatiful-skies-part-2/