This is a straightforward, logical, and science-based analysis of the climate change issue, and one of the best SLL has seen. It is refreshingly free from cant and appeals to authority, and the author even invites challenges to his premises, assumptions, facts and calculations. From Brett Hofstadt at engineeryourinnovation.com:
I’ll be straight up honest with you. I’m not a climatologist or meteorologist. But I am someone who cares deeply about truth, science, reason, politics, economics, and living in a world in which as many people as possible can realize their fullest potential as individual human beings. My technical and professional background is two degrees in aerospace engineering and a professional certification in project management.
Given that context, and my persistent desire to apply my analytical reasoning skills to get to the point of an issue so that we can UNDERSTAND THE REAL TRUTH of something, so that we can then DO WHAT REALLY MATTERS and what HAS THE BIGGEST IMPACT, here is my take on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) aka climate change controversy and debate.
If we want to take a rational, logical, and practical approach to the problem, let’s try to agree on some basic fundamentals. This is where I’m coming from. If you don’t follow along with me, I won’t expect you to agree with my conclusions. But if you also value a reality-based opinion and rational approach, this article describes the conversation I’ve had with myself.
First, there is an objective reality and truth about what is happening with our climate. Whatever is happening, it is real. And it doesn’t matter what we as individuals or as a species believe or think or wish about it.
Hopefully that isn’t a point of controversy or argument with you, dear reader. But there are plenty of people in the world who disagree with that basic premise. If someone believes that we can wish or meditate or pray the problem away, through pure consciousness, we’re already on a different page. Different planet and universe, as far as I’m concerned!
Second, whatever the facts truly are, we are capable of understanding it. Probably not with 100% certainty and 100% granularity, but by using our powers of perception, analysis, technology, and rational discussion, we can find the truth together. The situation is not inherently hopeless or unknowable. Hopefully you agree with that premise too. (I’ll spare you the rocket science analogy, even though that’s my background. You just said it yourself I bet!)
Third, I believe we as a species have the power and ability to find a peaceful, feasible, and sustainable solution. We have learned how to not only live, but prosper, in the harshest of environments across the planet. Even beyond our planet!! Admittedly, we haven’t advanced far beyond the survival phase in outer space, or underwater. We haven’t learned how to sustain ourselves in either environment without help from the surface dwellers. But with creativity, resourcefulness, innovation, and technology, we can certainly deal with a few degrees of temperature change or few inches (even feet) of water level change over decades or centuries. We can’t forget the CONTEXT of what we are investigating and talking about! We aren’t talking about our sun going supernova or swallowing our planet as a red giant anytime soon…we still have a few billion years to prepare for that!
Which brings me to one more important point: PROPORTIONALITY. This is an essential principle of successful engineering and design thinking. Pareto coined the concept of the Pareto Principle, which is also known as the 80/20 rule. If climate change is a genuine threat to our species, what are the highest impact or highest leverage actions we can take?
I’m a very practical and goal-oriented person. If there is a genuine, urgent, and major problem, let’s not f__ around about it. Time, money, and people’s lives are too precious to waste pursuing things that don’t matter or are ineffective or wasteful.
By the way, don’t fall for the sloppy thinking or hyperbole that OUR WORLD IS THREATENED BY CLIMATE CHANGE! “Our world” means our planet Earth. Earth itself is not threatened!! Get a grip! Remember the context!! The point we must remember–the context that really matters–is the effect (if any) of these changes on HUMAN LIFE.
HUMAN LIFE must be the standard by which we evaluate the impact, the risk, and the effectiveness of any actions we take.
To continue reading: A simple analysis to quickly prove the AGW climate change debate
“HUMAN LIFE must be the standard by which we evaluate the impact, the risk, and the effectiveness of any actions we take.”
I can’t help but think this is what Ayn Rand might have based her position, presentation and arguments–should she have found herself confronting the climate change advocates. Fine article, Will keep and share.
I was first referred to this post from the Galt’s Gulch website (www.galtsgulch.com).
From your reply, I went to gg.com and signed up as a guest. Not good on computer so did not do mediaplayer signup step. Saw your “middle east departure” article. Looking forward to the experience. Thanks for the tip.