Sunday 19 October 2014

Paul Beckwith

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: 

1 comment:

  1. 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.

    Secondly 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.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.