|
roachboy,
I don't generally place a lot of faith in the predictive power of statistical data based on approximations of global-scale dynamic systems. I know some do. I am more interested in the thermodynamic aspects of it, mainly because they follow directly from first principles, they are easy to understand, and the statistical interpretations are less, I don't know, removed. Statistics are funny in that, being the mathematics of guesswork, they always contain the implicit "you just never know" floating in the background. I do think it is odd when people attempt to refute questionable statistical data with questionable statistical data.
I'm not sure, at this point, that CO2 is really all that important with respect to climate change. Last year, I read through a back of the envelope workthrough of the predicted global temperature increase as it relates to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and it kind of shot the global climate change thing in the face for me. I'm not sure why methane doesn't get any press, from my understanding it's far worse as far as climate change goes. It is quite possible I'm missing part of the picture here.
Even so, I would much rather people rally around more tangible and established environmental problems, because there is no shortage of them. It is unfortunate that people must be threatened with complete annihilation before they are willing to make relatively painless, yet collectively significant changes to the way they live their lives. I guess motherfuckers love their drama.
|